Abadi Begam Vs. Asa Ram

.....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..........the property to lachman singh, one of the defendants, and to madho singh, on the 1st december 1870, it was recorded in the deed of mortgage that a monthly allowance of rs. 12 was to be paid to the plaintiff. the first mortgagee acknowledged this fact. the first mortgagee subsequently, on the 24th august 1874, sub-mortgaged the property to asa ram, the other defendant. the plaintiff, therefore, sued him along with lachman singh, the first mortgagee, as being in possession of the lands from which the allowance was to be paid. the munsif decreed against asa ram in favour of the plaintiff, exempting lachman singh. the judge, however, held that there was no clause in the second mortgage-deed binding him to continue the payment of rs. 12 monthly to the plaintiff, as had been the case in the first mortgage-deed with regard to the first mortgagee, and further he found that it was clearly shown by asa ram's witnesses that, at the time of entering into the sub-mortgage, lachman singh had bound himself to continue the payment, whereas the second mortgagee had never undertaken to pay it. moreover, lachman singh's sons and others had purchased the proprietary rights in the property, and lachman singh's interest in it had never ceased. the judge decreed asa ram's appeal, and gave the plaintiff a decree against lachman singh alone.2. it is contended that asa ram, sub-mortgagee, being in possession of the property charged with the payment of the monthly allowance of rs. 12, is bound to pay it.3. we are of opinion that the contention is right. the plaintiff is not affected by any arrangement made between lachman singh and asa ram. she looks to payment of her allowance from the income of the land charged with the burden of paying it, and therefore she has a claim upon the party who is in possession of the lands. in this case the sub-mortgagee, in accepting the mortgage from lachman singh, must have been aware of the conditions under which the latter had accepted the original.....