Skip to content


Chhote Lal Vs. Ramji Mal and anr. and - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1907)ILR29All50
AppellantChhote Lal
RespondentRamji Mal and anr. and ;bandhu Lal
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..........his objections were dismissed. he then brought the present suit under section 283 of the code of civil procedure. the court of first instance dismissed the suit. an appeal was preferred to the district judge's court, and was decided by the subordinate judge. he held that as the two mortgage deeds formed portions of one and the same transaction by which a sum of rs. 198 had been borrowed by the mortgagor from the mortgagee, the transaction should have been embodied in one deed of the value of rs. 198. this would have necessitated the deed being registered. by thus securing the loan through two separate deeds the defendants avoided the expenses he would have had to incur under the registration act. he therefore held that the two deeds were invalid and hence he decreed the appeal and the.....
Judgment:

John Stanley, C.J. and Rustomjee, J.

1. The plaintiff respondent was the auction purchaser of a house. Subsequently to his purchase it was sold in execution of a decree enforcing a mortgage created by two unregistered bonds of different dates. When the property was put up for sale, the defendant, who had two mortgage bonds of the value of Rs. 99 each of even date (the 22nd of November 1899)) applied that his lien may be proclaimed. The plaintiff objected, but his objections were dismissed. He then brought the present suit under Section 283 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit. An appeal was preferred to the District Judge's Court, and was decided by the Subordinate Judge. He held that as the two mortgage deeds formed portions of one and the same transaction by which a sum of Rs. 198 had been borrowed by the mortgagor from the mortgagee, the transaction should have been embodied in one deed of the value of Rs. 198. This would have necessitated the deed being registered. By thus securing the loan through two separate deeds the defendants avoided the expenses he would have had to incur under the Registration Act. He therefore held that the two deeds were invalid and hence he decreed the appeal and the plaintiff 's claim, awarding him costs in both the Courts.

2. Before us the same point is raised in this second appeal, and it is urged that no fraud was committed in the transaction through having embodied the amount of the loan in two separate deeds of the value of Rs. 99 each. We agree with this view of the case. There is nothing in the Registration Act which forbids the splitting up of a transaction in this manner. We therefore allow this appeal and set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court. Since it decided this appeal on a preliminary point, we remand it under Section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure for decision of the remaining points on their merits. Costs here and hitherto will abide the event.


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