Dal Singh and ors. Vs. Thaman Singh

act (local) no. ii of 1901 (agra tenancy act), section 22 - occupancy holding--succession--'lineal descendant'--hindu law--adoption. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction 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..........of the court of first instance is correct and must be restored. unless kewal singh can be said to be the brother by the same father as hansi's, he has no right to the occupancy holding, even on the assumption that thamman singh is illegitimate. in our opinion once a boy has been adopted into another family he ceases to be a 'lineal descendant' of his natural father. this was expressly held by a bench of this court in the case of lata v. nahar singh (1912) i.l.r. 34 all. 658. in principle exactly the same view was taken in the case of nandan tiwari v. raj kishore rai select decisions 1904 no. 5. we agree with both these authorities.4. the respondents rely upon the case of ali bakhsh v. barkatullah (1912) i.l.r. 34 all. 419, and quote the following passage from the judgement : 'in out opinion the personal law of the parties has nothing to do with the rule of succession which is laid down by section 22 of the tenancy act.' in our opinion this remark of the judges must be read in connection with the particular facts of the case before them.5. the result is that the appeal is allowed, the decree of the court below set is aside and the decree of the court of first instance is restored with costs in all courts.