The appellants pension granted to him on the supposition that he was a freedom fighter was cancelled on the ground that he had obtained the pension by fraud. The finding of the lower appellate Court is that the appellant was unable to establish even at the trial of the suit giving rise to this second appeal that he was a freedom fighter. It is obvious that he did secure the pension granted to freedom fighters, by miss-representation and fraud.

Moreover, learned counsel could not show any statutory right or other, legal right to pension as a freedom fighter. In the absence of any legal right to pension as a freedom fighter, the plaintiff did not have any right of action in the Court. He had no right which the Court might have enforced. The suit could also be said to be barred by Section 4 of the Pensions Act, 1871.

Dismissed under order 41 rule 11 C. P. C.

.