Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.
1. The plaintiff sued to have it declared that he was the owner of a ten pies share out of a one anna eight pies share, and a still larger share standing in the name of the defendant in the Kulkarni Vatan of the village of Mutat. The share was in land revenue assigned for the purpose of supporting the office of Kulkarni. Section 4 of the Pensions Act provides that no civil Court shall entertain any suit relating to any grant of 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.
2. The applicability of this section to cases of the description which we now have before us has been considered in various reported judgments of this Court, notably in Babaji Hari v. Rajaram Ballah I.L.R. (1875) Bom. 75 and Dwarkanath v. Mahadev : (1912)14BOMLR938 . Both judgments emphatically assert the necessity of applying the section without modification to all suits of this nature. In Balvant Ramchandra v. Secretary of State I.L.R. (1905) Bom. 480 : 7 Bom. L.R. 487 the section was very exhaustively discussed, together with the authorities which have accumulated upon it, in the judgment of Mr. Justice Batty, and in that judgment will be found an express acceptance of the conclusions arrived at by the Court in Babaji Hari v. Rajaram Bullel (1875) I.L.B. 1 Bom. 75. It is, however, said that those conclusions are inconsistent with the judgment of Sir Charles Sargent in Govind Sitaram v. Bapuji Mahadeo I.L.R. (1893) Bom. 516. That judgment, as shown in Dwarkanath v. Mahadev : (1912)14BOMLR938 , related to a case expressly provided for by the Vatan Act in which the Legislature contemplated that a decree of a Court should be obtainable, for it was a case in which the plaintiff's status as Vatandar was challenged, and the Court held that that being so, his right of access to the civil Court was not to be ousted merely because the greater part of the remuneration for the Vatan service consisted of a money grant from Government. Here we are not concerned with any question of disputed status. The plaintiff is a member of a Vatan family who by reason of his membership has been able to acquire by purchase a certain share in the Vatan property, and his suit now relates to the share of revenue assigned for the Vatan, a suit relating to which falls within the purview of Section 4 of the Pensions Act. We, therefore, affirm the decree of the lower appellate Court and dismiss the appeal with costs.