Skip to content


Kallu Vs. Bijai Ram - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1875)ILR1All592
AppellantKallu
RespondentBijai Ram
Excerpt:
.....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..........in substitution for that of the former owner, and having obtained such possession as the nature of the property admitted, he then set himself to discharge the incumbrances for which it was under attachment. limitation in such a case runs from the date when he obtained possession of the status of the owner sufficient to enable him to procure mutation and to exercise the rights of an owner. the appeal is decreed, the decrees of the courts below reversed, and the suit dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

Turner, J.

1. The principle laid down in the Full Bench judgment of the Court I.L.R. 1 All. 311 governs this case. The appellant was not bound to discharge the debts in respect of which the property was attached immediately lie had obtained his decree confirming the sale. He took such possession as he then could obtain. The appellant, having established his title, carried his decree to the revenue office, and got his name entered in substitution for that of the former owner, and having obtained such possession as the nature of the property admitted, he then set himself to discharge the incumbrances for which it was under attachment. Limitation in such a case runs from the date when he obtained possession of the status of the owner sufficient to enable him to procure mutation and to exercise the rights of an owner. The appeal is decreed, the decrees of the Courts below reversed, and the suit dismissed with costs.


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