Skip to content


imtiaz-un-nissa Bibi Vs. Masih-un-din - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1915)ILR37All40
Appellantimtiaz-un-nissa Bibi
RespondentMasih-un-din
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..........schedule to the limitation act in so far as the case relates to a claim against him for money realized by him. in our opinion under the circumstances of the present case the plaintiff was only entitled to recover under the form of action known as a claim for ' money had and received by the defendant for the use of the plaintiff.'' the last item realized by the defendant was realized as far back as the year 1908. the present suit was not instituted until february, 1912, that is to say more than three years after the latest item was received. in our opinion the suit is barred under article 62. we accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the court below, and dismiss the suit, as against the appellant, with costs.
Judgment:

Henry Richard, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.

1. This appeal is connected with First Appeal No. 104 of 1912 in which we have just now delivered judgement. The facts are stated in out judgement in the connected, appeal, and the only difference between the cases is that a plea of limitation has been taken in the present case. It is contended on behalf of the defendant that the suit is barred by article 62 of the first schedule to the Limitation Act in so far as the case relates to a claim against him for money realized by him. In our opinion under the circumstances of the present case the plaintiff was only entitled to recover under the form of action known as a claim for ' money had and received by the defendant for the use of the plaintiff.'' The last item realized by the defendant was realized as far back as the year 1908. The present suit was not instituted until February, 1912, that is to say more than three years after the latest item was received. In our opinion the suit is barred under article 62. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the court below, and dismiss the suit, as against the appellant, with costs.


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