Madras High Court
Jogirdar Rama Rao vs Kottipi Thimma Reddi on 17 March, 1919
Equivalent citations: 54IND. CAS.331, AIR 1920 MADRAS 148
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. 153 : 2 M.L.T. 33 following Secretary of State for India v. Khemchand Jeychand 4 B. 432. The lower Court was right in relying on that distinction. We dismiss the appeal with costs.