1. This is a decree holder's appeal arising out of certain; execution proceedings. In 1889 Musammat Kundan who owned certain properties and was: entitled to a pension from Government, executed a usufructuary mortgage of all these properties including the pension in favour of certain mortgagees. She took possession of the properties under a lease from the mortgagees and for the due payment of rent she executed another mortgage-deed by way of security in which that pension was again included. The previous mortgage-deed was paid off but a suit was brought on the basis of the second, one and a decree obtained against the representatives of the mortgagor. Mazhar All was a purchaser of part of the mortgaged properties, and so was the respondent Biggha Begam. It appears that Mazhar Ali had to pay more than his due share in order to save his property from being sold, and having done so instituted a suit, for contribution against Biggha Begam and certain other judgment-debtors. In this suit he claimed that, he was entitled to enforce his claim against the portion of the pension purchased by Musammat Biggha Begam on which he had a charge. The suit was first decided by Gh. Abdul Hasan, who decided Issues No. 1 and 6. relating to the question whether the pension in dispute was or was not saleable, in favour of the plaintiff. He ordered that a decree under Order XXXIV, Ruler 4 should be prepared for recovery of the amount out of the properties in the hands of the various defendants. An appeal; was preferred to the High Court and that judgment was seta side and the suit was remanded to the Court of first instance. This time the suit was disposed of by Mr. Ram Chand Saksena, who decreed the claim against the properties purchased by the various defendants as detailed in the plaint. He added that the amount decreed will be a charge, on the properties purchased by the defendants. He further directed that a decree should be prepared according to Ruler 4 of Order XXXIV, C.P.C. six month's time being allowed for payment. The learned Subordinate Judge seems to have accepted the bindings arrived at by his predecessor, although the whole suit had been remanded, and he only dealt at length with the question of the proportionate liability of the various defendants. The decree-holder appealed to the High Court, and Musammat Biggha Begam and another defendant filed certain cross-objections. By the judgment of the High Court the amounts were slightly varied, but the decree was not set aside; nor was the order of the Court that a decree under Order XXXIV, Ruler 4 be prepared in any way upset.
2. The decree-holder is now seeking to recover the amount decreed to him by sale of the pension in the hands of Musammat Biggha Begam. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that this pension is not attachable, and, therefore, cannot be sold. He has, therefore, dismissed the decree-holder's application.
3. In our opinion the question whether a certain pension is of such a character as not to be liable to be sold is a mixed question of law and fact. If the point was expressly raised by the defendant concerned in the suit itself and decided against her and a decree under Order XXXIV, Ruler 4 was passed for the sale of that pension, it no longer remains open to the judgment-debtor to say that the pension was of such a character as not to be saleable at all. It would not be proper for the Execution Court to re-open the question which has already been decided in the original suit. Of course, if the question had not been decided at all and the Execution Court were called upon for the first time to consider whether it would proceed to sell the property which either on the face of it or admittedly was not saleable there might be some force in the contention that the Court would not be justified in selling it. But the case here is quite different and we think that the question which depended on a consideration of a number of facts should not now be allowed to be re-opened. We may note that in the Full Bench case of Mubarak Husain v. Ahmad : AIR1924All328 Civ. two out of the three learned Judges held that in cases where no attachment is necessary and the sale takes place in pursuance of a mortgage decree directing a sale of the mortgaged property, Section 60 of the C.P.C. will not be applicable so as to prevent the Court from selling the property.
4. The learned Vakil for the respondent has drawn our attention to the judgment of a Single Judge of this Court which was afterwards affirmed in appeal under the Letters Patent in the case of Mazhar Ali Khan v. Mahfuz Hasan 68 Ind. Cas, 854 : 44 A. 697 : 20 A.L.J. 679 : (1922) A.I.R. (A.) 429, where the learned Judge referring to the final judgment referred to above remarked at pages 698 44 A. and 699 44 A. that the question whether a particular piece of property in the hands of the defendant was 'attachable' was irrelevant in the suit, which was brought to determine the liability of that defendant and he felt satisfied, ; that the point was not,, decided by anybody so as to be binding upon the parties. That judgment, however, was between the decree-holder on the one hand and Mahfuz Hasan on the other, to which Musammat Biggha Begam, the present respondent, was not a party. It is, therefore, obvious that Musammat Biggha Begam cannot take advantage of, that judgment as if it were resjudicata. The remarks in that judgment must be considered to he obiter dicta so far as the present litigation is concerned.
5. We have already said that a decree under Order XXXIV, Ruler 4 was prepared, and it is, therefore, obvious and that there has not been any question of an 'attachment' of the pension, but only whether the charge was enforceable against this property.
6. Considering the case on the merits we are satisfied that this pension is saleable. It may be that in the case of Muzhar Ali v. Mahfuz Hasan 68 Ind. Cas. 854 : 44 A. 697 : A.L.J. 679 : 20 A.L.J. 679 : (1922) A.I.R. (A.) 429, the decree-holder could not adduce sufficient evidence to satisfy the Court that the pension was saleable. In the present case, however, there is plenty of documentary evidence on the record which points to that direction. This pension, is entered in the register which was prepared for entering pensions coming under Section 7(2) of the Pensions Act (No. XXIII of 1871), which are expressly declared to be transferable. The learned Subordinate Judge says that this pension was entered wrongly in this register. There seems to be no ground, however, for suspecting that this was so. The reason given by the learned Subordinate Judge is that this pension was granted under an order of 1887, but the register itself shows that this pension was certainly of an earlier date.
7. In a judgment dated the 27th of May 1896 which was delivered in a suit between Khuda Bakhsh the mortgagee, and Musammat Alimunnisa, a representative of the mortgagor, it was expressly decided that the pension which had been previously mortgaged was transferable. That judgment shows that the pension was granted at least as early as 1856. This judgment was affirmed on appeal on the 26th of August 1901. Subsequently there was another litigation between Khuda Bakhsh on the one hand and Alimunnisa on the other in which on the 10th of October 1906 there was a similar finding. The predecessors-in-title of the parties were parties to those suits and, therefore, even if those judgments do not operate as resjudicata they are certainly admissible in evidence.
8. There is the further fact that these pensions have been transferred from one person to another. Musammat Biggha Begam, the objector, is herself a transferee of the portion in her, hands, and so is the decree-holder, Mazhar Ali. There are also other transferees of this pension.
9. Having regard to all these circumstances we are convinced that this pension was not a political pension which is declared to be non-transferable under Section 11 of the Pensions Act.
10. The result, therefore, is that this appeal is allowed the decree of the Court below set aside, and the objection of Musammat Biggha Begam dismissed with costs.