JUDGMENT 1. In execution of a decree for rent obtained by the decree-holder, the right of the judgment-debtor to receive a certain annual sum from Government was sought to be attached ; and thereupon the question was raised between the parties, whether this right of the judgment-debtor was liable "to attachment and sale, having regard to the provisions of sec. 11 of the Pensions Act (XXIII of 1871). The Subordinate Judge has found that the nature of the grant was this : the Government, by mistake, at the time of the permanent settlement, had resumed certain rent-free lands and, when the mistake was discovered, they made a grant in favour of the predecessor in title of the judgment-debtor entitling him to receive a certain amount annually from Government. This view seems to be supported by a proceeding of the Collector of Murshidabad, dated the 16th March 1875, which is upon this record. Referring to the Pensions Act, it will be seen that, under sec. 4 of that Act, "no Civil Court can entertain a suit relating to any pension or grant of money or land-revenue conferred or made by the British or any former Government, whatever may have been the consideration for any such pension or grant and whatever may have been the nature of the payment, claim or right for which such pension or grant may have been substituted." We are not now concerned with the question whether a civil suit would lie for any relief in regard to this allowance or annuity, whatever it may be called. Sec. 11 of the same Act, however, says as follows:--"No pension granted or continued by Government on political considerations or on account of past services or present infirmities or as a compassionate allowance and no money due or become duo on account of any such pension or allowance shall be liable to seizure, attachment or sequestration by process of any Court in British India, at the instance of a creditor, for any demand against the pensioner or in satisfaction of a decree or order of any such Court." The question here arises whether the amount which the Government annually pays is a "pension" within the meaning of this section. Now, the section itself indicates what a pension really is, namely, it is a grant made by Government on political considerations or on account of past services or present infirmities or as a compassionate allowance. It seems to us, having regard to the nature of the grant in this case, and the circumstances under which it was made, that it could not be regarded as a pension within the meaning of the section. The learned vakil for the Respondent has, however, argued that this was a compassionate allowance. But it is obvious that it could not be so regarded. It was, as the Collector said on his proceeding to which we have referred, a compensation for the loss sustained by the grantee by reason of the improper resumption by Government of certain lands which belonged to him. It is quite possible to hold that it is a grant of money within the meaning of sec. 4 of the Act. That section is rather of a comprehensive character ; but it does not follow from this, that the grant is a pension within the meaning of sec. 11 This matter seems to have been considered by the Bombay High Court in the case of The Secretary of State for India in Council v. Hem Chand Jey Chand I. L. R. 4 Bom. 432 (1880), where it was held that the word "pension" as occurring in sec. 11 of the Pensions Act is used in its ordinary and well-known sense, namely, that of a periodical allowance or stipend granted, not in respect of any right, privilege, perquisite or office, but on account of past services or particular merits or as compensation to dethroned princes, their families and dependents. The learned Judges in that case pointed out the distinction between the provisions of sec. 4 and those of sec. 11 of the Act. We think that we may well follow the view that was expressed in that case ; and we are of opinion, for the reasons that have already been stated, that the allowance in question is not a pension within the meaning of sec. 11 of the Pensions Act. We need hardly say that the onus is entirely upon the judgment-debtor to show that the allowance in question is exempt from attachment or sale under the Code of Civil Procedure. Nothing has been shown to us entitling him to such exemption. 11 of the Pensions Act. We need hardly say that the onus is entirely upon the judgment-debtor to show that the allowance in question is exempt from attachment or sale under the Code of Civil Procedure. Nothing has been shown to us entitling him to such exemption. Upon these grounds we are of opinion that the order of the Court below holding that the allowance in question is not liable to attachment must be set aside, and this appeal allowed with costs. We order accordingly. We assess the hearing fee at 5 gold mohurs.