Skip to content


Kamala Devi Vs. Gur Dayal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectContract
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1917)ILR39All58
AppellantKamala Devi
RespondentGur Dayal and ors.
Excerpt:
.....mortgaged property. - 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..........no. 311. part of that rule is as follows: 'a native of india, who is a member of the indian civil service, or holds any office ordinarily reserved for member of the indian civil service, and any government servant belonging to the provincial or subordinate civil service may continue to hold any immovable property actually held by him at the time of his entry into government service, and may thereafter acquire any immovable property by succession, inheritance or bequest, or, with the previous sanction of the local government or such heads of departments as may be specially empowered by the local government in this behalf, by purchase or gift.' it may perhaps be implied that it was intended to prevent a government servant from acquiring immovable property after his appointment.....
Judgment:

Henry Richards, C.J., Muhammad Rafiq and Walsh, JJ.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage. Amongst other pleas taken was the plea that the property had been acquired in the name of the plaintiff but really for her husband Khub Lal who occupied the Government post of registrar kanungo, and that under the rules dealing with the conduct of public servants, such an officer was not entitled to acquire property. The court of first instance having found the other issues in favour of the plaintiff dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the assignment to her was 'contrary to public policy.' The lower appellate court, without dealing with the other issues, upheld the decision of the court of first instance on the same ground The plaintiff comes here in second appeal, contending that the decision on the point of law was not correct. We have this day in a connected Second Appeal No. 1503 of 1914 dealt with very much the same question. In that case a patwari had taken an assignment in the name of his mother, of a certain mortgage. A suit brought by the mother to enforce the mortgage was dismissed on the same ground. Section 234 of the Land Revenue Act provides for the making of rules in connection with patwaris and kanungos. Certain rules have been made with regard to patwaris, but apparently no similar rules have been made with regard to kanungos. At least our attention has not been called to any such. Our attention has been drawn to 'rules for the conduct of Government servants' and in particular No. 311. Part of that rule is as follows: 'A native of India, who is a member of the Indian Civil Service, or holds any office ordinarily reserved for member of the Indian Civil Service, and any Government servant belonging to the provincial or subordinate civil service may continue to hold any immovable property actually held by him at the time of his entry into Government service, and may thereafter acquire any immovable property by succession, inheritance or bequest, or, with the previous sanction of the Local Government or such Heads of departments as may be specially empowered by the Local Government in this behalf, by purchase or gift.' It may perhaps be implied that it was intended to prevent a Government servant from acquiring immovable property after his appointment without the sanction of the Government or Head of his department, but there is no express provision that he shall not do so. We think that it is impossible to argue that this rule by itself is sufficient to make the transfer to the kanungo's wife null and void. Nor do we think, for the reasons stated in our judgement in the connected case, that the transfer can be considered void on the ground of public policy. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the decrees of both the courts below and remand the case to the lower appellate court with directions to re-admit the appeal upon its original number in the file and to proceed to hear and determine the same according to law, having regard to what we have said above. Each side will bear their own costs of this appeal, The other costs will be costs in the cause.


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