( 485 )
56—D. C. Jaffna, 20,034.
Pension—Pensioner of Federated Malay Slates—Deposit at Kachcheri—
Seizure—Writ of execution—Civil Procedure Code, s. 218 (g).
Money deposited at the Jaffna Kachcheri as pension due to aperson who had been employed under the Federated MalayStates Government is not exempt from seizure under section218 (g) of the Civil Procedure Code.
PPEAL from an order of the District Judge of Jaffna. Theappellant obtained a writ in execution of a decree against
the respondent, who was a pensioner of the State of Selangor^ andseised a sum of money deposited at the Jaffna Kachcheri as pensiondue to the respondent by arrangement with the Government of theFederated Malay States. The learned District Judge held thatthe respondent’s pension was exempt from seizure under a writobtained in Ceylon.
Weerasooria, for defendant, appellant—The defendant's salarydoes not come under any one of the exemptions mentioned insection 218 of the Civil Procedure Code. Sub-section (g) speaksof civil pensioners of Government and political pensions. Section5 defines Government as the person or persons authorized by lawto administer Executive Government in Ceylon. The plaintiff isa pensioner of the State of Selangor and cannot therefore claimthis exemption. Political pensioners may be placed on a differentfooting. The plaintiff is a civil pensioner.
Croos da Brera, for plaintiff, respondent—Under section 218only “ Saleable property ” can be seized. The pension of theplaintiff is not only not saleable but it is not seizable. •• Under rulesmade by the Federated Malay States Government the pension of theplaintiff cannot be seized in execution. The English Courts .havedeclined to uphold the seizure of the pension of an pfficer in
Present: Fisher C.J. and Drieberg J.AMBALAVANAB' v. KANDAPPAB
( 486 )
1929 the Indian Army on the ground that they should see that theAmbalavdnar pension rules of another country are respected (Lucas v. Harris 1• v. ■' Bir0h n. Biroh*). Our Courts too should adopt the same principle.
Kandc&par puky0 policy requires that pensions should be free from seizure.
July 6, 1929. Fisher C.J.—
In this base the appellant obtained a writ in execution of a decreefor payment of costs by the respondent. The respondent is apensioner of the State of Selangor, and by arrangement betweenthe Federated Malay States Government and the Ceylon Govern-ment the pension is paid to him from the Jaifna Kachcheri. The sumof Es. 74 was deposited in the Kachcheri in respect of thepension and the appellant appUed to the District Court for anorder authorizing its seizure under his writ. It appears that inthe Federated Malay States pensions are exempt from seizure,and the learned District Judge held that the sum in question inthis case was therefore exempt from seizure in Ceylon and dismissedthe appellant's application. In the course of his judgment thelearned Judge said: “Asa matter of public policy the State protectsthe salaries and pensions of its servants from execution. TheFederated Malay States form a federation and come under thecategory ’ of1 British possessions* or protectorates. The principleenunciated is also common to Ceylon, which also protects the pensionsof its servants. I think the Courts of this colony are bound to.respect the principle where it concerns the pensions of anothercolony./' .“
In the absence of any express legislation, I do not think that thelaw of the Federated Malay States on this question can be held tobe .operative in Ceylon. If this sum is exempt from seizure inCeylon, it can only be so by virtue of some express provision of thelaw which is in *force in Ceylon. The only such provision which,it is sought, to make applicable to this case is sub-section (g) ofsection. 218 .of the Civil Procedure Code, and, in my opinion, weare’ entirely confined for the purposes of our judgment to a considera-tion. of the construction of that sub-section. The sub-sectionexempts from seizure or sale (inter alia):—“ (g) Stipends allowedto naval, military, and civil pensioners of Government and politicalpensions. ” There is, in my opinion, nothing in the subject orcontext which requires us to extend the meaning of the word“ Government “ beyond that assigned to it in the interpretationclause of the Civil Procedure Code, section 5, under which theword “ Government ” is to be construed as meaning “ the person orpersons authorized by law to administer Executive Government
1 (1*M) 18 Q. B. D. 127
* (1383) 8 P. D. 163.
.( 487 )
in Ceylon.” Clearly, therefore, the sum in question does notcome within that, sub-section and, if the amount which, the appellantis entitled to recover under the decree is still unpaid, there is nothingto prevent it being available for the appellant in executing hisdecree against the respondent. <
The appeal, therefore, is allowed and the respondent must paythe costs of the contest in the District Court and of this and of theprevious appeal.
Driebehg J.—I agree.
AMBALAVANAR v. KANDAPPAR