Rikhai Singh and ors. Vs. Indar Sen Singh and Kamar-un-nissa Bibi and ors.

.....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.....john stanley, c.j. and william burkitt, j.1. there is a matter to which our attention has been directed. the suit is a suit to enforce payment of a mortgage of the 10th of november 1897 by sale of the mortgaged property, and for no other relief. in the course of the proceedings, however, it was discovered that there were two prior mortgages affecting the whole or portion of the mortgaged property, namely, a mortgage of the 1st of march 1888, and another of the 23rd of february 1891., no relief was asked in respect of these mortgages, but in the decree of the court below it was provided that the plaintiffs, on payment of prior mortgages, should be competent to get the property sold by auction, a relief which was not sought. no provision is made in the decree for the sale of the property to satisfy these debts, if paid. the stamp officer of the court has reported that the court fee paid by the plaintiff in the court below, in view of the relief given to him, was insufficient, and that the court fee paid on the appeal has already been made good, but the deficiency, if any, on the plaint has not been paid. it appears to us that in view of the relief claimed by the plaintiffs in their plaint, the court fees, which have been paid both here and below, are sufficient. mr. sundar lal, on behalf of the plaintiffs respondents, expressed his willingness to pay the additional court fee, provided the court gave his clients the supplemental relief to which the clients would be entitled if the plaint were amended and proper reliefs arising out of the existence of these prior mortgages be granted, but he objects to the payment of any additional court fees unless he gets those additional reliefs. we think his contention is right, and that the decree of the court below went too far in providing for the redemption of the earlier mortgages, a relief which, we have said before, was not sought. we think that the best course is to modify the decree of the court below by striking out the po