JUDGMENT H.G. Richards, C.J. and Banerji, J. - This appeal arises out of a suit on foot of a mortgage. The amount duo to the plaintiff was a very largo sum, namely, Rs. 27,000 odd. He abandoned part of his claim and only sought to recover Rs. 10,000. The property which is the subject of the mortgage is referred to in a document called "proceedings in the Revenue Court, district Banda, dated the 4th of December, 1840." This document will be found printed at page 1 of the respondents' book. The document recites the history of the village, and some ancient sanads would appear to have been produced at the time. It seems that a grant of the village was first made by one Raja Chattar Lal in favour of one Pabari Bhand, who was the ancestor of the defendants. This sanad was succeeded by others, long prior to the establishment of British rule. The document, we referred to, concludes with the following remarks:--"The sanads which have been produced were also taken into consideration.*** Therefore, u/s 9 of the Circular Letter as also under other sections of the said letter, this village seems fit to be held as a muafi from generation to generation as heretofore. I therefore concur in the opinion of the Deputy Sahib as to the maintenance of the muafi." Then follows the order "that this village be maintained as muafi as before." The village has been held as a muafi, village up to the present day. It is admitted that the mortgage was made and executed; but the defendants, mortgagors, plead that a suit could not be maintained without a certificate u/s 6 of the Pensions Act, XXIII of 1871, and secondly, that it was not competent for the co-sharers to transfer the property at all. 2. An extract from the wajib-ul-ars of 1880 was given in evidence by the defendants. There the entry is to the following effect:--The jama of this mahal was remitted for the Support of the zamindars. It is still remitted by the Government. No co-sharer is competent to transfer property." The learned Subordinate Judge considered that a certificate was necessary under the provisions of the Pensions Act. In our opinion he was wrong. There the entry is to the following effect:--The jama of this mahal was remitted for the Support of the zamindars. It is still remitted by the Government. No co-sharer is competent to transfer property." The learned Subordinate Judge considered that a certificate was necessary under the provisions of the Pensions Act. In our opinion he was wrong. Section 4 provides that no Civil Court shall entertain any suit relating to any pension or grant of money, or land revenue, conferred or made by the British or any former Government. It seems to us clear that the grant of the land was not a "pension." The expression "grant of money" or "land revenue" is defined in section 3 of the Act as including anything payable on the part of the Government in respect of any right, privilege, perquisite or office. Section 8 of the Act throws some light upon what was meant by pensions and grants by Government of money or land revenue, because it is there provided that they are to be paid by the Collector, Deputy Commissioner or other authorized officer. The grant of these villages was certainly not a grant of land revenue within the ordinary meaning of that expression. It is contended, however, that inasmuch as Government remitted the revenue, they must be said to have granted it. We do not think that this is the true meaning of the expression in the Act. If it were, all muafi holdings would fall within the purview of the Act. It is, however, conceded that ordinary muafi can be and is daily transferred both by way of sale and mortgage, and that the Pensions Act does not apply to ordinary muafi. A Bench of this Court held in the case of Ganpat Rao v. Anand Rao (1905) I.L.R., 29 All., 101 : (1909) 32 All. 148 that a grant of land revenue free was not a grant of land revenue within the meaning of the Act. On appeal their Lordships of the Privy Council did not differ from the finding of this Court. The same view was taken in the case of Lachmi Narain v. Makund Singh (1901) I.L.R., 26 All., 617. 3. The only question which remains is the effect of the entry in the wajib-ul-arz. On appeal their Lordships of the Privy Council did not differ from the finding of this Court. The same view was taken in the case of Lachmi Narain v. Makund Singh (1901) I.L.R., 26 All., 617. 3. The only question which remains is the effect of the entry in the wajib-ul-arz. It seems to us that this entry standing by itself cannot have the effect of making property which prima facie is transferable, untransferable. We do not know under what circumstances the entry was made. In the proceedings of 1840, to which we have referred, there is not the smallest reference to any restraint upon alienation on the grantees. In our opinion the decision of the court below was wrong. 4. We, therefore, allow the appeal; set aside the decree of the court below, and decree the plaintiff's claim with costs in both courts. We fix six months from this date for payment and direct that the decree be drawn up in the terms of order 34, rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure.