NAWAB USMANALI KHAN versus SAGARMAL

Citation: [1965] 3 S.C.R. 201 · Decided: 26-02-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
e 
H 
201 
NAWAB USMANALI KHAN 
v. 
SAGARMAL 
F abruary 26, 1965 
[K. SUBBA RAO, J. C. SHAH AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure (Act 5 of 1908), ss. 60(1)(g), 86(1) and 
87B-Proceedings under ss. 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act (10 of 
1940)-If "suit"-Payments to Ruler of former Indian State on accoUJll 
of privy purse-If liable. to attachment. 
The appellant. who was a Ruler of a former Indian State, had 
money dealings with the respondent. They referred their disputes to 
an arbitrator who made his award directing the appellant to pay. 
a certain sum of money, in instalments. The award also stated that 
the existing documents relating to debts on lands would remain as 
before and would remain as securities till the payment of debts. 
The arbitrator filed the award into court and the court, after notice 
to the parties. passed a decree in terms of a compromise modifying 
the award. The respondent started execution proceedings and the 
court passed a prohibitory order under O.XXI, r. 46 of the Civil 
Procedure Code, 1908. in respect of the sums payable to the appel-
lant by the Central Government on account of the privy purse; but 
on the application of the appellant, that order was vacated. 
The 
appellant and respondent filed appeals in the High Court, against 
the various orders, and the High Court decided all the appeals against 
the appellant. 
In the appeal to the Supreme Court, it was contended that, (i) M 
the award affected immovable property of the value of more than 
Rs. 100, and was not registered, a decree could not be passed in terms 
of the award, (ii) the proceedings under the Indian 
Arbitration 
Act, 1940, were incompetent in the absence of the consent of the 
Central Government under ss. 86(1) and 87B of the Code, and there-
fore the decree passed in those proceedings was without jurisdiction 
and void and (iii) the amount receivable by the appellant as his 
privy purse was a political pension within the meaning of s. 60(1)(g) 
of the Code, and not liable to attachment or sale in execution of a 
decree. 
HELD: (i) The award did not create or of its own force declare 
any interest in any immovable property and since it did not come 
within the purview of s. 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, was not 
required to be registered. r (204 Hl 
(ii) A proceeding under s. 14 read withs. 17 of the Arbitration 
Act, for the passing of a judgment and decree on an award, does not 
commence with a plaint or a petition in the nature of a plaint, and 
cannot be regarded as a suit and the parties to whom the notice of 
the filing of the award is given under s. 14(2) cannot be regarded as 
"sued in any Court otherwise competent to try the suit" within the 
meaning of s. 86(1) read with s. 87B of the Code. Neither are those 
provisions of the Code attracted by reason of s. 41 (a) of the Arbi-
tration Act or s. 141 of the Code. It follows that the G:ourt was com-
petent to entertain the proceedings under s. 14 of the Arbitration 
Act and pass a decree in those proceedings though no consent to the 
institution of the proceedings had been given by the Central Govern-
ment. [205 G-H; 206 B-D] 
SUl'BEME COURT REPORTS 
[196~] 3 s.c .•• 
(iii) The amounts of the privy purse of the appellant were not .I. 
liable to attachment or sale in execution of the respondent's decree. 
f209 C-Dl 
The periodical payment of money by the Government to a Ruler 
of a former Indian State as privy purse on political considerations 
and under political sanctions and not under a right legally enforce-
able in any municipal court is strictly a political pension wi_thin the • 
meaning of s. 60(1) (g) of the Code. The privy purse satisfies all the 
essential characteristics of a political pension, and as such is pro-
tected from execution under s. 60(1) (g). f209 A-Cl 
CML APPELLNI'E JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 568 and 
767 of 1963. 
Appeals from the judgment and order dated October IO, 1960. 
of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, Indore, in C 
Civil Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 33 of 1958 and 81 and 82 of 
1957. 
G. S. Pathak, B. Dutta, J. B. Dadachanii, 0. C. Mathur and 
Ravinder Narain, for the appellant. 
D 
B. R. L. Iyengar, S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, for the res-
pondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Bachawat, J. The appellant is the Ruler of the former Indian 
State of Jaora. He had money dealings with the respondent. By 
B 
an agreement dated February 23, 1957, the appellant and 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.