The central legal point established in the judgment is that any custom permitting deduction from a pension, which contravenes the provisions of the Pensions Act, is void and cannot adversely affect the right of the entitled party to claim their full share.

Mudholkar, J—This is a Plaintiff's second appeal from a decree awarding her a sum of Rs. 16/- per annum only as her share in a political pension payable to the members of her father's family.

2. According to her she was entitled to claim Rs. 48/- per annum. The Defendant to the suit is the person whose name is entered in the Permanent Pay Order. His duty is to receive pension from the Government and disburse the amount amongst those who are entitled thereto. Such a person is commonly known as Dastaki.

3. The claim of the Plaintiff was resisted by the Defendant on various grounds. The lower Courts however decreed it though only to the extent stated above. The reduction in claim is based on the grounds that the Plaintiff is entitled to only- /1/4/- share in the pension (which is Rs. 288/- per annum) and not to -/2/8/- share therein as claimed by her and that the Defendant is entitled to deduct Rs. 96/- per annum from the amount of Rs. 288/- before disbursing pension amongst the persons entitled to a share therein.

4. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff does not challenge before me the finding of the Courts below that the share of the Plaintiff is only -/1/4. What he, however, contends is that the deduction of Rs. 96/- per annum from the amount of pension is not permissible under Sections 11 and 12 of the Pensions Act. The ground on which the deduction is claimed by the Defendant is that by virtue of an agreement entered into between the ancestors of the parties about 75 years before the suit, the Dastaki was allowed to deduct Rs. 96/- per annum from the amount received by way of pension in order to enable him to maintain the dignity of his office. Further according to him, not only the Plaintiff but before her, her mother as well as her father had permitted such a deduction being made and that she was not now entitled to say that such a deduction is not permissible. Finally, on this point, it is contended, that in a suit instituted some years ago by the Plaintiff's mother for recovery of arrears of pension from the Defendant, the claim was limited to Rs. 16/- per annum only and that decision in the suit operates as constructive 'res judicata' in the present case.

5. In my opinion, the plea of 'res judicata' is of no avail to the Defendant because the Plaintiff does not claim her share in the pension through her mother but she claims at it through her father. For, it was to her father that she has inherited and not to her mother. Her mother, no doubt, did enjoy the pension during her lifetime but that was as a widow of her husband, that is, the Plaintiff's father Ramchandra. Her failure to assert in the previous suit that the Defendant was not entitled to make any deduction does not therefore operate as constructive 'res judicata' against her in the present suit.

6. The question then is whether the Defendant is entitled to make this deduction. It has been found by the Courts below that the Defendant and his predecessors have been making the deduction for a considerable length of time and that a custom permitting such a deduction has been established. That is a finding of fact and therefore it is not challenged before me.

7. What is however said is that this custom is in contravention of the express provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the Pensions Act, and is therefore void. It seems to me that Section 11 of the Act has no bearing on the point. Section 12, however, is relevant. It runs as follows. All assignments, agreements, orders, sales and securities of every kind made by the person entitled to any pension, pay or allowance mentioned in Section 11, in respect of any money not payable at or before the making thereof, on account of any such pension, pay or allowance, or for giving or assigning any future interest therein are null and void.

It is clear from this provision that every agreement whereunder any future interest is assigned is null and void. In the present case, the assertion made on behalf of the Defendant is that