Pir Muhammad Vs. Banno - Court Judgment
|Court||Allahabad High Court|
|Judge||Spankie and ;Straight, JJ.|
.....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..........creating an interest in immoveable property of the value of rs. 100 and upwards, and under section 17 of act xx of 1866 required registration. the present case is analogous to one decided by pearson, j., and oldfield, j., in rajpati singh v. ramsukhi kuar i.l.r. 2 all. 40, and the view we now hold is in accordance with the current of decisions in this court see ahmad bakhsh v. gobindi i.l.r. 2 all. 216; karan singh v. ram lal i.l. r. 2 all. 96; and darshan singh v. hanwanta i.l.r. 1 all. 274 to which our attention was called in the course of the hearing. the appeal is decreed with costs, the judgment of the lower appellate court reversed and the decree of the munsif restored.
1. It seems to us that this appeal should prevail. By the bond of 17th December 1866, the property was charged for both principal and interest. The first instalment was payable in three years from the date of the bond with the accumulated interest, and the amount then becoming due would exceed Rs. 100. It was therefore an instrument creating an interest in immoveable property of the value of Rs. 100 and upwards, and under Section 17 of Act XX of 1866 required registration. The present case is analogous to one decided by Pearson, J., and Oldfield, J., in Rajpati Singh v. Ramsukhi Kuar I.L.R. 2 All. 40, and the view we now hold is in accordance with the current of decisions in this Court See Ahmad Bakhsh v. Gobindi I.L.R. 2 All. 216; Karan Singh v. Ram Lal I.L. R. 2 All. 96; and Darshan Singh v. Hanwanta I.L.R. 1 All. 274 to which our attention was called in the course of the hearing. The appeal is decreed with costs, the judgment of the lower Appellate Court reversed and the decree of the Munsif restored.