Skip to content


Musammat Jagesri Kuar Vs. Ram Nath Bhagat and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1875)ILR1All371
AppellantMusammat Jagesri Kuar
RespondentRam Nath Bhagat and anr.
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..........is maintainable. the lords of the privy council* expressly except the case of a suit brought by a hindu reversioner from the operation of the general rule.2. the appeal is decreed and the suit remanded under section 351 for trial. costs of the appeal to abide and follow the result.---------------------------------foot note------------------------------------* strimathoo moothoo vijia bagoonadah ranee kolandapuree natchiar alias kattama natchiar v. dorasinga tevar alias gowry vallaba tevar 15 b.l.r. 83.the portion of that judgment o their lordships referred to here was as follows:the arguments now under consideration are founded on the right of a reversioner to bring a suit to restrain a widow or other hindu female in possession from acts of waste, although his interest during her life.....
Judgment:

1. We are of opinion that the present suit is maintainable. The Lords of the Privy Council* expressly except the case of a suit brought by a Hindu reversioner from the operation of the general rule.

2. The appeal is decreed and the suit remanded under Section 351 for trial. Costs of the appeal to abide and follow the result.

---------------------------------Foot Note------------------------------------

* Strimathoo Moothoo Vijia Bagoonadah Ranee Kolandapuree Natchiar alias Kattama Natchiar v. Dorasinga Tevar alias Gowry Vallaba Tevar 15 B.L.R. 83.

The portion of that Judgment o their Lordships referred to here was as follows:

The arguments now under consideration are founded on the right of a reversioner to bring a suit to restrain a widow or other Hindu female in possession from acts of waste, although his interest during her life is future and contingent. Suits of the kind form a very special class and have been entertained by the Courts ex-necessitate rei.


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