Shafiq-ud-dIn Vs. Lakhan Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- 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.....orderseth, j.1. this is an application in revision against an appellate order arising out of a case under section 12, u. p. agriculturists relief act. the court of first instance granted the application for redemption. the appellate court has agreed with the court of first instance on almost every point except on the question of limitation and having found that the application was barred by limitation has dismissed it. the plaintiff-applicant applies in revision against the order of the lower appellate court.2. the argument put forward by the learned counsel before me is different from the argument that was put forward before the lower appellate court, in the lower appellate court it was argued that limitation was saved by a certain acknowledgment made by a hindu widow. the defendants are.....

Judgment:
ORDER

Seth, J.

1. This is an application in revision against an appellate order arising out of a case under Section 12, U. P. Agriculturists Relief Act. The Court of first instance granted the application for redemption. The appellate Court has agreed with the Court of first instance on almost every point except on the question of limitation and having found that the application was barred by limitation has dismissed it. The plaintiff-applicant applies in revision against the order of the lower appellate Court.

2. The argument put forward by the learned counsel before me is different from the argument that was put forward before the lower appellate Court, In the lower appellate Court it was argued that limitation was saved by a certain acknowledgment made by a Hindu widow. The defendants are the reversioners. The lower appellate Court overruled this contention on the authority of the decision of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee reported in Soni Ram v. Kanhaiya Lal, 35 ALL. 227 : (40 I. A. 74). The decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council is as much binding upon me as it was binding upon the lower appellate Court. In view of this decision I cannot but hold that the alleged acknowledgment did not extend the period of limitation.

3. I have already observed that the question of limitation has been differently argued before me. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in Ram Prasad v. Bishambhar Singh : AIR1946All400 , and it is contended on the authority of that case that the mortgage money having been paid up before the suit was instituted from the usufruct of the property, the claim was not a claim for redemption but it was a claim for possession for which limitation began to run from the date when the mortgage debt was paid up by the usufruct and not before that. The decision in Ram Prasad's case : AIR1946All400 , no doubt supports the contention that where a suit is brought for possession on the allegation that the mortgage debt has been paid up it is not a suit for redemption and time begins to run from the date when the right to claim possession accrues. This case, however, has no application to the present case which is not a suit of this description. It is an application under Section 12, U. P. Agriculturists Relief Act. Under this section only an application for possession by redemption can be made. Indeed this is the precise relief claimed in the application. The plaintiff-applicant having chosen to put forward a claim for redemption cannot take advantage of Ram Prasad's case : AIR1946All400 . The decision of the lower appellate Court on the question of limitation is, therefore, correct though for different reasons.

4. This application in revision is dismissed with costs.