Data DIn Vs. Mt. Nohra - 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 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]. sen, j.1. this is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of title to certain zamindari property and for possession in the alternative. the relationship of the parties will appear from the following genealogical table;baijnath________|_________| |ram autar suraj bali|| | |data din sat narain |plaintiff 2 plaintiff 1 ram sanmukh=mt. nohra(defendant)2. data din and sat narain claimed to be the members of a joint hindu family with ram sanmukh, husband of mt. nohra defendant. they alleged that ram sanmukh died in the year 1918 as a member of the joint hindu family and that they became owners of the property which was recorded in his name by right of survivorship and that the name of mt. nohra was recorded in the revenue papers only by way of solatii cause.3. the suit was resisted on the ground that ram sanmukh died as a member of a divided family, that upon his death his property devolved upon his widow by right of inheritance, and that the suit was obnoxious to the provisions of section 233-k, land revenue act.4. the first court held that ram sanmukh died as a member of a joint hindu family with the plaintiffs, and that section 233-k, land revenue act, did not bar the suit. it accordingly gave the plaintiffs a decree.5. the lower appellate court has not gone into the question as to whether ram sanmukh died as a member of the joint hindu family with the plaintiffs, but has reversed the decision of the trial court upon the ground that section 233k operated as a bar to the suit.6. the property in dispute is situate in mauza anchraul in the district of basti. certain co-sharers of this mauza applied for partition of their shares in the revenue-paying mahal on 7th december 1921. proclamation in due course was issued under section 110, land revenue act, against the other co-sharer who did not join in the partition including the parties to the present action. the present plaintiffs applied that a separate patti be formed of their share together with the share of mt. nohra. mt. nohra, however, did not join in this application. at a later stage, long after the expiry of the period which was fixed under the proclamation, mt. nohra applied that her share might be formed into a separate patti. the assistant collector gave effect to this petition and directed a separate patti to bo formed. the order of the assistant collector was reversed on appeal. the result was that while a separate patti of the share of the plaintiffs was formed, the share standing in the name of mt. nohra was incorporated into the baqi manda mahal.7. it is difficult to understand how on these facts, the plaintiffs' claim could be barred by section 233-k, land revenue act. the declaration which the plaintiff's seek is that they are the owners of the property which stands recorded in the name of mt. nohra. the object of this suit is not to claim any relief affecting the partition of union of mahals. if the plaintiffs' claim is allowed, the only result will be that the name of mt. nohra will be removed from the revenue records and the name of the plaintiffs substituted in her place, leaving the integrity of the partition proceedings absolutely unaffected. this case is in many respects parallel to lal behari v. parkali koer [1920] 42 all. 309. the rule of law laid down therein is directly opposed to the view of the lower appellate court.8. we hold that section 233-k, land revenue act is no bar to the suit.9. the result is that we allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate court and remand the case to that court for disposal of the appeal on the marits. costs here and hitherto should abide the result.