Skip to content


Baru Mal and ors. Vs. Niadar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1902)ILR24All153
AppellantBaru Mal and ors.
RespondentNiadar
Excerpt:
.....and revenue courts--suit to ejectas a trespasser a person who claimed to be entitled to the holding of a deceased occupancy tenant--res judicata. - 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..........out of which this appeal has arisen is, or is not, one governed by the precedent of subarni v. bhagwan khan (1896) i.l.r. 19 all. 101.2. we agree with our brother banerji that the present suit was not one governed by that precedent. in the present suit the application originally made to the revenue courts was an application on plain paper, headed and marked as being one under section 102 of act no. xix of 1873. no person was cited as a defendant: all that the application stated was, that the applicant had been in joint occupancy of an occupancy holding together with the deceased; that he had succeeded to the holding, and was in possession of it; that the patwari had wrongly refused to report the case for mutation of names, and prayed that mutation of names might be effected in his.....
Judgment:

Knox and Blair, JJ.

1. The point which has been contended, and very earnestly contended, before us by the learned vakil for the appellant, is whether the suit out of which this appeal has arisen is, or is not, one governed by the precedent of Subarni v. Bhagwan Khan (1896) I.L.R. 19 All. 101.

2. We agree with our brother Banerji that the present suit was not one governed by that precedent. In the present suit the application originally made to the Revenue Courts was an application on plain paper, headed and marked as being one under Section 102 of Act No. XIX of 1873. No person was cited as a defendant: all that the application stated was, that the applicant had been in joint occupancy of an occupancy holding together with the deceased; that he had succeeded to the holding, and was in possession of it; that the patwari had wrongly refused to report the case for mutation of names, and prayed that mutation of names might be effected in his favour. There was, as is usual in these cases, a fringe of irrelevant matter tending to obscure the point in issue. The Revenue Court, however, dealt with it as an application under Section 102, and passed its order under Section 102. There was not, as in the case of Subarni v. Bhagwan Khan any request to be put in possession of the occupancy holding: the law has not made any provision, as the learned vakil rightly admitted, whereby orders passed under Section 102 of Act No. XIX of 1873 can be treated as judgments of a Civil Court. The case before us differs thus toto coelo from the case of Subarni v. Bhagwan Khan.

3. We dismiss this appeal with costs.


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