Gokal Das Vs. Gobar Dhan Das - Court Judgment |
| Civil;Property |
| Allahabad High Court |
| Dec-31-1969 |
| Pearson and ;Spankie, JJ. |
| (1880)ILR2All633 |
| Gokal Das |
| Gobar Dhan Das |
.....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.....pearson, j.1. the provisions of regulation xvii of 1806, to which the first ground of appeal refers, are only applicable to the holders of deeds of conditional mortgage. the plaintiff, appellant, was not the holder of such a deed; and the provisions of the regulation aforesaid were not therefore applicable to him. this being so, we must hold that according to the condition on which the property was made over to him he became the owner of it after the expiry of three months from the date on which it was made over to him, in consequence of the amount of the loan not having been repaid to him. it thus appears that he had acquired a full proprietary right and title to the property before kishen das' insolvency. accordingly we affirm the decree of the lower courts and dismiss the appeal with costs.
Pearson, J.
1. The provisions of Regulation XVII of 1806, to which the first ground of appeal refers, are only applicable to the holders of deeds of conditional mortgage. The plaintiff, appellant, was not the holder of such a deed; and the provisions of the Regulation aforesaid were not therefore applicable to him. This being so, we must hold that according to the condition on which the property was made over to him he became the owner of it after the expiry of three months from the date on which it was made over to him, in consequence of the amount of the loan not having been repaid to him. It thus appears that he had acquired a full proprietary right and title to the property before Kishen Das' insolvency. Accordingly we affirm the decree of the lower Courts and dismiss the appeal with costs.