A compromise decree based on an unlawful agreement is void and cannot be enforced by the courts.

R.K.Choudhary, J.

1. This application in revision has been presented by the defendants first party against the decree passed by the Munsif, first court at Begusarai, exercising small cause court powers, in small cause court suit No. 54 of 1954. The plaintiffs opposite party instituted a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 69-4-0 as their share of the Government pension received by the petitioners with interest thereon, The case of the plaintiffs is that they and the defendants first and second parties descended from a common ancestor and are the Pandas of a temple at Jaimanagala Garh. This temple receives an annual pension of Rs. 40 from the Government. The plaintiffs claimed to have eight annas interest therein and, according to them, the defendants first and second parties each have four annas interest. There was a dispute between the parties with respect to their right in regard to the above pension and this gave rise to two title suits, being title suits Nos. (113/73 of 1944/46 & 230/94 of 1944-46 filed in the court of the Munsif at Begusarai. Both the suits were made analogous and were compromised. The compromise was recorded and a decree based on that compromise was passed. According to the terms of the compromise the plaintiffs were held entitled to receive eight annas share and the defendants first party and the defendants second party to receive tour annas share in each in the above pension. Subsequent to the compromise decree, defendant No. 1 one of the petitioners, withdrew Rs. 80.00 on 20-2-1953, and Rs. 40 on 4-3-1953, as pension from the Government, but did not pay to the plaintiffs their eight annas share therein. Hence, they filed a suit for recovery of their share of the amount recovered by defendant No. 1, as stated above, with interest thereon.

2. The case of the petitioners is that the plaintiffs are their distant gotias and that they did not descend from a common ancestor from whom they claimed the pension. It has also been pleaded that the pension could not be the subject of division between the parties and the compromise entered into between them in the suits referred to above were illegal and void. The defendants second party later on were transposed to the category of the plaintiffs.

3. Apart from the compromise decree, the plaintiffs supported their claim also on the basis of a Taksimnama, exhibit 3, executed by the parties on 16-2-1948, according to which the parties were to receive shares in the pension as alleged by the plaintiffs in their suit. The learned Small Cause Court Judge held that the plaintiffs were entitled to the shares as claimed by them in the above pension, but they could not get any interest thereon. He, therefore, decreed the suit with respect to the share of the plaintiffs in the pension. Against this decree, the defendants first party have presented this application.

4. Mr. Jha, appearing for the petitioners, has contended that the suit is not entertainable by a civil court and is barred under Sec. 4 of the Pensions Act, 1871 (Act No. XXIII of 1871). That section reads as follows:

"Except as hereinafter provided, no civil court shall entertain any suit relating to any pension or grant of money or land-revenue conferred or made by the British or any former Government, whatever may have been the consideration for any such pension or grant, and whatever may have been the nature of the payment, claim or right for which such pension or grant may have been substituted."

Section 5 of that Act provides the mode in which claims to such pensions can be made and lays down that any person having a claim relating to any such pension or grant may prefer such claim to the Collector of the District or Deputy Commissioner or other officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government; and such Collector, Deputy Commissioner or other officer shall dispose of such claim in accordance with such rules as the Chief Revenue-authority may, subject to the general control of the appropria