Skip to content


inayat Khan Vs. Rahmat Bibi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1880)ILR2All97
Appellantinayat Khan
RespondentRahmat Bibi
Excerpt:
.....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..........such a nature when instituted in a civil court, and nevertheless to hold that the decision of the issue of title in the trial of such a suit should finally estop the parties from raising the same issue in a suit brought to try the title. for these reasons, and following the precedent quoted, we allow the review of judgment, and inasmuch as no other point arises in the special appeal than the point already argued at the hearing of the application, we proceed to dispose of the appeal.2. the only objection taken to the decrees of the courts below proceeding on the contention that the issue respecting title was finally determined in the former proceedings, and that the parties are concluded by the former finding on that issue, we overrule the objection and dismiss the appeal with costs,.....
Judgment:

Turner, J.

1. The respondent's pleader, in support of his application for a review of judgment, has adduced a precedent of this Bench (unreported), which, it must be admitted, is in his favour. On reconsideration of the point raised, we are of opinion that the application for review should be granted. The former suit between the parties was a suit for rent cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, and the special appeal presented against the decree of the lower Appellate Court in that suit was rejected on the ground that the suit was of that character. In a suit for rent instituted in a Small Cause Court the question of title would only be determined incidentally. It appears to us that it would be inequitable to rule that no special appeal lies in a suit of such a nature when instituted in a Civil Court, and nevertheless to hold that the decision of the issue of title in the trial of such a suit should finally estop the parties from raising the same issue in a suit brought to try the title. For these reasons, and following the precedent quoted, we allow the review of judgment, and inasmuch as no other point arises in the special appeal than the point already argued at the hearing of the application, we proceed to dispose of the appeal.

2. The only objection taken to the decrees of the Courts below proceeding on the contention that the issue respecting title was finally determined in the former proceedings, and that the parties are concluded by the former finding on that issue, we overrule the objection and dismiss the appeal with costs, including the costs of the application for review.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //