Hamid UddIn Vs. Akbar Husain

.....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 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 namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as..........because the plots said to be corresponding to no. 255/2 in certain quinquennial settlement were shown as parts of other pattis. this cannot be correct in view of what had happened at the partition of 1287 f. the entries at the quinquennial settlement or, for the matter of that, in other settlements, so far as they are opposed to the entries in the partition 'chitthis,' must be held to be incorrect.2. the plaintiff's case must however fail on the question of limitation. the suit being one under section 44, agra tenancy act, the period of limitation is that prescribed by serial no. 2 of group b, schedule 4 of that act, which provides limitation of 12 years to be computed from the date when the landholder first knew of the unauthorized occupation of the land by the defendant. it is in the evidence of the plaintiff's father, from whom he has derived his title under a deed of gift, that the defendant was in possession of the land in suit when an application for partition was made in 1325 f. of patti jamiluddin. he goes on to say that he does not know how long before that application the defendant was in possession of the land in suit. the year 1325 rule corresponds to 1917-18. we know the exact date on which such application was made. it is 14th may 1918. the present suit was instituted on 14th october 1929, nearly 12 years after that application. it is for the plaintiff to prove that he obtained knowledge of the defendant's unauthorized occupation within 12 years. the plaintiff has failed to show that he came to know of the defendant's occupation within 12 years of the institution of the suit. the result of my findings is that the appeal is dismissed with costs. leave to appeal under the letters patent is refused.