Jogirdar Rama Rao v. Kottippi Thimma Reddi

The Lower Court's decision is in accordance with Bhimarazu Varadayya v. Manchukonda Nammalwar. It is argued that we should regard the grant to appellant (defendant) as a pension because it was made, in the words of Sect. 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, following Secretary of State for India v. Khemchand Jeychand, The Lower Appellate Court was right in relying on that distinction. We dismiss the appeal with costs.

S. S.Appeal dismissed.