Raghuraj Singh Vs. Sham Dei and anr. - Court Judgment |
| Civil |
| Allahabad |
| Jun-26-1924 |
| AIR1925All51 |
| Raghuraj Singh |
| Sham Dei 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..........is now made by the plaintiff urging that the jurisdiction of the court of small causes was ousted by clause 35, sub-clause (g) of schedule 2 of the provincial small causes courts act. that clause bars the trial of suits for compensation for breach of contract of betrothal or promise of marriage.3. in view of the fact that part of the claim was for money which it was alleged had been expended in preliminary marriage ceremonies i think that the clause in question would, if appealed to, by either party or if it had come to the notice of the learned judge earlier, have been a bar to the trial of the suit by the learned judge of the small cause court. on the other hand, the suit was tried out fully by him on the merits without any objection by either party and without the point having come otherwise to his notice.4. under these circumstances i think that this court should not interfere and in that view i am supported by the case in ram lai v. kabul singh (1902) 25 all. 135. the application is dismissed with costs.
Boys, J.
1. In this case the plaintiff sued for return of ornaments and for certain money expended. The ornaments are said to have been given and the money is said to have been expanded in consequence of a marriage which had been arranged and the suit for recovery was due to the fact of that marriage having fallen through. The learned Judge of the Small Cause Court dismissed the suit on the merits, having heard it fully.
2. This application in Civil revision is now made by the plaintiff urging that the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes was ousted by Clause 35, Sub-clause (g) of Schedule 2 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. That clause bars the trial of suits for compensation for breach of contract of betrothal or promise of marriage.
3. In view of the fact that part of the claim was for money which it was alleged had been expended in preliminary marriage ceremonies I think that the clause in question would, if appealed to, by either party or if it had come to the notice of the learned Judge earlier, have been a bar to the trial of the suit by the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court. On the other hand, the suit was tried out fully by him on the merits without any objection by either party and without the point having come otherwise to his notice.
4. Under these circumstances I think that this Court should not interfere and in that view I am supported by the case in Ram Lai v. Kabul Singh (1902) 25 All. 135. The application is dismissed with costs.