P.L.BHARGAVA, J. - (1.) I agree with the conclusions recorded by my learned brother, Desai J. and also with the order proposed by him. I would however, like to express my own views about the maintainability of the claim relating to the 'muafi', which has also been described as 'assignment of land revenue' and which is the 'grant' of land revenue, within the meaning of the term used in Section 4, Pensions Act (NO. XXIII [23] of 1871).
(2.) THE plaintiffs' suit, which has given rise to this appeal, related to specified shares in three items of property; viz., (1) a house in the city of Budaun; (2) the 'muafi'; and (3) the sir land. The suit was instituted in the Court of the Civil Judge of Budaun; and the Court was competent and had jurisdiction to try the same. In view of the provisions contained in Section 4, Pensions Act, however, the Court could not entertain the suit, so far as it related to the 'muafi', unless the procedure prescribed in Sections 5 and 6 of the Act had been followed; that is to say, the claim had been first preferred to the collector of the district, in which the property was situate, and the Collector had issued the certificate referred to in Section 6 of the Act. As the suit related to other property as well, the Court could not and did not refuse to entertain the same. After the suit had been instituted the claim relating to the 'muafi' seems to have been preferred to the Collector, as he issued the necessary certificate, which was produced before the Court, while the suit was still pending. Thus the claim in respect of the 'muafi' became cognizable by the Court, under s. 6 of the Act, which is in these terms; 'A Civil Court otherwise competent to try the same, shall take cognizance of any such claim upon receiving a certificate from such Collector...,.....'. The claim referred to in the section is a claim relating to any 'grant' of land revenue; and the plaintiffs' claim in respect of the 'muafi' was such a claim. As already stated, the Court entertained the suit, which also related to the 'muafi'; and before the final adjudication of the claim, the required certificate from the Collector was produced before the Court. The Court was, there, fore, bound, in view of the provisions quoted above, to take cognizance of the claim relating to the 'muafi.' After taking cognizance of the claim the Court might have held it as barred by time; but that had nothing to do with the question whether the Court could entertain the suit or take cognizance of the claim in respect of the ' muafi'.
(3.) SECTION 4 of the Act, no doubt, lays down that ' Except as hereinafter provided, no civil Court shall entertain any civil suit relating to any pension or grant of money or land revenue...'; but in view of the opening words, the section has to be read along with Section 6 of the Act. The words 'upon receiving a certificate from such Collector' used in Section 6, clearly suggest that the certificate may not be filed along with the plaint and it may be received by the civil Court after the suit had been filed.;