Sukhdeo Ahir and anr. Vs. Baldeo Ahir and anr. - Court Judgment |
| Civil |
| Allahabad |
| Jan-06-1949 |
| AIR1949All536 |
| Sukhdeo Ahir and anr. |
| Baldeo Ahir and anr. |
.....of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase..........(rs. 500?) it was only the revenue court which could entertain the suit. the courts below repelled this plea on the view that the aggregate mortgage money under all the five deeds being in excess of rs. 500, the civil court was vested with jurisdiction to try the suit. on a consideration of the language of section 10 of this act, we are of opinion that the expression 'the principal money' in that section necessarily has reference to the amount secured under a single mortgage transaction. it does not refer to the aggregate mortgage money that may be secured under a number of deeds executed by the same person in favour of the same person or persons. we, therefore, think that the view taken by the court below was not correct and that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.4. we accordingly set aside the order of the lower appellate court and direct that the plaint be returned by the trial court for presentation to the proper court. the other side is not represented. we, therefore, make no order as to costs.
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.
1. This is a defendants' application in revision against a decree passed in proceedings for redemption under Section 12. U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act.
2. The claim for redemption was made in respect of five mortgages of different dates made by the same person against different members of a joint Hindu family. It is now agreed that not only the mortgagor under the various mortgages was the same, but also the mortgagees under them had joint interests in the mortgagee rights.
3. One of the pleas taken in defence was that the civil Court before which the suit had been filed had no jurisdiction but that it was the revenue Court which alone had jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the provisions of Section 10 of the said Act. The point taken was that as the mortgage money under every one of the five deeds was below Rs. 100 (Rs. 500?) it was only the revenue Court which could entertain the suit. The Courts below repelled this plea on the view that the aggregate mortgage money under all the five deeds being in excess of Rs. 500, the civil Court was vested with jurisdiction to try the suit. On a consideration of the language of Section 10 of this Act, we are of opinion that the expression 'the principal money' in that section necessarily has reference to the amount secured under a single mortgage transaction. It does not refer to the aggregate mortgage money that may be secured under a number of deeds executed by the same person in favour of the same person or persons. We, therefore, think that the view taken by the Court below was not correct and that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
4. We accordingly set aside the order of the lower appellate Court and direct that the plaint be returned by the trial Court for presentation to the proper Court. The other side is not represented. We, therefore, make no order as to costs.