Dal Singh and ors. Vs. Thaman Singh - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
act (local) no. ii of 1901 (agra tenancy act), section 22 - occupancy holding--succession--'lineal descendant'--hindu law--adoption. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private 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 of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. therefore, the term such board will have to mean a divisional board of or the level of divisional board or the state board. the divisional board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. the state board advises the state government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. the cantonment board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other board or body under the cantonments act discharging any such duties. the duties of the cantonment board are laid down in section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. the cantonment board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. therefore, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. that being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the act. for the reasons state above, the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. henry richard, c.j. and tudball, j.1. this appeal arises out of a suit brought by one kewal singh to recover possession of certain immovable property comprising an occupancy holding, the occupancy holding belonged at one time to puhap singh. puhap singh had a son hansi and a son kewal, the plaintiff. on the death of puhap singh, hansi became the occupancy tenant. kewal had been adopted into another family. on the death of hansi the defendant thamman singh entered into possession. kewal singh then brought the present suit alleging that he was entitled under section 22(c) of the tenancy act to the occupancy holding. he also alleged that thamman singh was illegitimate.2. the court of first instance dismissed the suit. the lower appellate court reversed the decision of the court of first instance and decreed the plaintiff's suit. hence the present appeal.3. in our opinion the decree of the court of first instance is correct and must be restored. unless kewal singh can be said to be the brother by the same father as hansi's, he has no right to the occupancy holding, even on the assumption that thamman singh is illegitimate. in our opinion once a boy has been adopted into another family he ceases to be a 'lineal descendant' of his natural father. this was expressly held by a bench of this court in the case of lata v. nahar singh (1912) i.l.r. 34 all. 658. in principle exactly the same view was taken in the case of nandan tiwari v. raj kishore rai select decisions 1904 no. 5. we agree with both these authorities.4. the respondents rely upon the case of ali bakhsh v. barkatullah (1912) i.l.r. 34 all. 419, and quote the following passage from the judgement : 'in out opinion the personal law of the parties has nothing to do with the rule of succession which is laid down by section 22 of the tenancy act.' in our opinion this remark of the judges must be read in connection with the particular facts of the case before them.5. the result is that the appeal is allowed, the decree of the court below set is aside and the decree of the court of first instance is restored with costs in all courts.