Back
1972 Supreme(Raj) 157
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : B.P.Beri,M.L.Joshi
SAHIB ZADA ADBUL BAIS KHAN - Appellant
Versus
BUDH SINGH BAPNA - Respondent
Misc. Appeal 77 Of 1968
Decided On : 09/25/1972
C.L.AGARWAL, M.B.L.Bhargawa, N.M.KASLIWAL, S.M.MEHTA
A political pension is a periodical allowance granted to attain a political end.
Headnote:
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 60 (1) (G) - RAJASTHAN CASH JAGIR ABOLITION ACT, 1958 - RAJASTHAN PENSIONS ACT, 1958 - TONK KHANDAN ALLOWANCE RULES - ATTACHMENT OF POLITICAL PENSION - DISOBEDIENCE OF INJUNCTION - PUNISHMENT.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendant on the basis of a promissory note. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff moved two applications, one for attaching before judgment the Khandan allowance payable to the defendant and the other to restrain the defendant from receiving the said allowance from the Collector, Tonk, and the Collector from disbursing it. The learned Civil Judge passed an ex parte order restraining the defendant from receiving and the Collector from disbursing the amount to the extent of Rs. 60,000/-. The defendant filed an application by way of revision challenging the order of the Civil Judge. While the matter was pending, the plaintiff moved an application before the Civil Judge, Tonk under Order 39, Rule 2 (3) C. P. C. stating that the defendant had withdrawn the amount of Rs. 36,556-50 from the treasury Jaipur and he should be committed to civil prison. The Civil Judge found that the payment of Rs. 36,000/- and odd was not exempt from attachment; that the defendant fraudulently managed to draw the forbidden allowance from Treasury Jaipur and thus circumvented the order of the Court and was guilty of disobedience. He accordingly directed the attachment of the defendants property and committed him to civil prison for two months. Defendant Sahibzada preferred this appeal.
Finding of the Court:
1. The grant of Khandan allowance to the appellant was in the nature of a "political pension" exempt from attachment under Section 60 (1) clause (g) of the first proviso of the Code of Civil Procedure in view of the Tonk Khandan Rules and the Rajasthan Cash Jagir Abolition Act XXIX of 1958 read with the rajasthan Pensions Act; and on the authority of the decided cases. 2. The appellant is guilty of disobeying Civil Judges injunction dated 30-5-64. 3. The punishment of two months simple imprisonment is excessive and is reduced to seven days simple imprisonment.
Issues: 1. Whether the money received by Sahibzada was exempt from attachment? 2. Whether the appellant is guilty of disobeying Civil Judges injunction dated 30-5-64?. 3. Is the punishment excessive?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The allowance granted to the appellant under the Tonk Khandan Rules is a cash jagir under the Rajasthan Cash Jagir Abolition Act, and the same having been expressly excluded from the definition of "grant of money" it cannot be anything except pension envisaged by the Pensions act. 2. The allowance under the Tonk Rules is a political pension within the meaning of the term employed in Section 60 (1) (g) of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore exempt from attachment. 3. The appellant was duty bound to obey the injunction order and he not only disobeyed it but contrived to disregard it and his disobedience, therefore, is not merely technical. 4. The attachment of the property of the appellant in the circumstances of the case is not justified under the law. Order 39, Rule 2 (3) and (4) and is therefore set aside.
Final Decision: The appeal is partly allowed. The allowance payable to the appellant Sahibzada Abdul Bais Khan is exempt from attachment, but he was clearly guilty of disobedience and rightly punished. The punishment is reduced to 7 days simple imprisonment. The attachment of the property is set aside. The revision is partly allowed.
B. P. BERI, J.
( 1 ) ON the basis of a promissory note dated 6-6-1963 Seth Budh Singh Bapna instituted a suit against Sahibzada Abdul Bais Khan of Tonk. During the pendency of the suit on 30-5-64 the plaintiff moved two applications. One was for attaching before judgment the Khandan allowance payable to the defendant and the other was to restrain the defendant from receiving the said allowance from the Collector. Tonk. and the Collector from disbursing it. The learned Civil Judge passed an ex parte order restraining the defendant from receiving and the Collector from disbursing the amount to the extent of Rs. 60,000/ -. Let us recall the exact words of the restraint order because its disobedience is an important question for decision. . . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). . The order was served on the defendant on 2-7-1964. On 5-10-64 the defendant appeared and contested the application saying that the plaintiffs move was vexatious and that the Khandan allowance was not attachable.
( 2 ) AGAINST the order of the learned Civil Judge an application by way of revision was also filed which is No. 232 of 1965, which we shall dispose of by this judgment.
( 3 ) WHILE the matter was pending the plaintiff moved an application before the Civil Judge Tonk under Order 39, Rule 2 (3) C. P. C. stating that the defendant had withdrawn the amount of Rs. 36. 556-50 from the treasury Jaipur by Pension Payment Order No. 479 and he should be committed to civil prison. This Court had directed, in the Civil Revision, the Civil Judge to decide the question whether the amount payable to the defendant was attachable. The plaintiff led evidence and the learned civil Judge found that the payment of Rs. 36,000/-and odd was not exempt from attachment; that the defendant fraudulently managed to draw the forbidden allowance from Treasury Jaipur and thus circumvented the order of the Court and was guilty of disobedience. He accordingly directed the attachment of the defendants property and committed him to civil prison for two months. Defendant Sahibzada has preferred this appeal.
( 4 ) MR. C. L. Agrawal for the appellant urged that the grant of Khandan allowance to the appellant was in the nature of a "political pension" exempt from attachment under Section 60 (1) clause (g) of the first proviso of the Code of Civil Procedure in view of the Tonk Khandan Rules and the Rajasthan Cash Jagir Abolition Act XXIX of 1958 read with the rajasthan Pensions Act; and on the authority of the decided cases, viz. , secy, of State for India in Council v. Khemchand Jeychand, (1879) ILR 4 bom 432; Bishambhar Nath v. Nawab Imdad Ali Khan. (1890) 17 Ind app 181 (PC ). Usmanali Khan v. Sagar Mal. AIR 1965 SC 1798; muthuasami Naidu v. Prince Alagia Manavala Simmala Raja. (1903) ILR 26 Mad 423; Ladhmi Narain v. Makund Singh. (1904) ILR 26 All 617; amna Bibi v. Najmun-Nissa. (1909) ILR 31 All 382; Satraji Dongarchand v. Madho Singh. AIR 1927 Mad 604 and Lala Harnam Das y. Mst. Faiyai begum. AIR 1922 All 22. His further submission was that the learned civil Judge was in error in holding that the appellant disobeyed the injunction because what the appellant received or recovered was pension while he was only restrained from receiving "ten-khwah". The restraint order was to forbid him from receiving it from Treasury Tonk and not from Jaipur from where the appellant received it and, therefore, there was no disobedience. He placed reliance on Hazee Mohamed Kuzulbash v. Sha-zada Mohamed Buseerooddeen, (1867) 7 Suth WR 169. At the worst it was a technical breach and should be leniently dealt with and he placed reliance on Shiv Narain Singh v. Muni Lal, AIR 1934 Lah 881.
( 5 ) ON the other hand. Mr. M. B. L. Bhargava on behalf of the respondent urged that the Tonk Khandan Allowance Rules do not envisage any political pension. He placed reliance on Ramchandra-rao v. Vithal kashav, AIR 1948 Bom 143; Yadeo Nilkanth v. Jankidas Narsinghdas, air 1937 Nag 202; Jiban Krishna Ghoah v. Sr
