Skip to content


Jogirdar Rama Rao Vs. Kottipi Thimma Reddi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in54Ind.Cas.331
AppellantJogirdar Rama Rao
RespondentKottipi Thimma Reddi
Cases ReferredIndia v. Khemchand Jeychand
Excerpt:
pensions act (xxiii of 1871), section 11 - grant of land revenue, whether pension - 1. the lower court's decision is in accordance with bhimaraja varadayya v. manchu konda nammalwaru 4 ind. cas. 1057 : 20 m.l.j. 88 : 6 m.l.t. 132. it is argued that we should regard the grant to appellant (defendant) as a pension, because it was made, in the words of section 11, act xxiii of 1871, for past services, irrespective of its nature. but there is no reason for taking that course and disregarding the distinction drawn in the act between pensions and grants of money and land revenue, which has been recognised in subraya mudali v. velayuda chetty 30 m.k 153 : 2 m.l.t. 33 following secretary of state for india v. khemchand jeychand 4 b.k 432 the lower court was right in relying on that distinction. we dismiss the appeal with costs.
Judgment:

1. The lower Court's decision is in accordance with Bhimaraja Varadayya v. Manchu Konda Nammalwaru 4 Ind. Cas. 1057 : 20 M.L.J. 88 : 6 M.L.T. 132. It is argued that we should regard the grant to appellant (defendant) as a pension, because it was made, in the words of Section 11, Act XXIII of 1871, for past services, irrespective of its nature. But there is no reason for taking that course and disregarding the distinction drawn in the Act between pensions and grants of money and land revenue, which has been recognised in Subraya Mudali v. Velayuda Chetty 30 M.K 153 : 2 M.L.T. 33 following Secretary of State for India v. Khemchand Jeychand 4 B.K 432 The lower Court was right in relying on that distinction. We dismiss the appeal with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //