Skip to content


Karim Baksh and anr. Vs. Budha - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1875)ILR1All249
AppellantKarim Baksh and anr.
RespondentBudha
Excerpt:
public thoroughfare - obstruction--jurisdiction--act x of 1872, section 521. - 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 working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment..........the suit for the removal of the encroachment cannot be maintained--baroda prasad mostafi v. gora chand mostafi+ pyari lal v. rooke 3 b.l.r. a.c. 30 : 3 b.l.r. app. 543 : s.c. 11 w.r. 434; hira chand banerjee v. shama charan chatterjee 3 b.l.r. a.c. 351. there is, it is true, a decision to the contrary--jina ranchod v. jodha ghella 1 bom. h.c. 11. 1, but the weight of authority supports the view taken by the judge, which accords with the english law on the subject and is based on principles well understood. but it must be determined whether the road in suit is a public thoroughfare.------------------------------------foot note--------------------------------+ 3 b.l.r. a.c. 295 : s.c. 12 w.r. 160, followed in raj lukhee debia v. chunder kant chowdry 14 w.r. 173; bhageeruth rishee v......
Judgment:

1. If the road is a public thoroughfare, then, inasmuch as the plaintiffs alleged no special injury, the suit for the removal of the encroachment cannot be maintained--Baroda Prasad Mostafi v. Gora Chand Mostafi+ Pyari Lal v. Rooke 3 B.L.R. A.C. 30 : 3 B.L.R. App. 543 : S.C. 11 W.R. 434; Hira Chand Banerjee v. Shama Charan Chatterjee 3 B.L.R. A.C. 351. There is, it is true, a decision to the contrary--Jina Ranchod v. Jodha Ghella 1 Bom. H.C. 11. 1, but the weight of authority supports the view taken by the Judge, which accords with the English law on the subject and is based on principles well understood. But it must be determined whether the road in suit is a public thoroughfare.

------------------------------------Foot Note--------------------------------

+ 3 B.L.R. A.C. 295 : S.C. 12 W.R. 160, followed in Raj Lukhee Debia v. Chunder Kant Chowdry 14 W.R. 173; Bhageeruth Rishee v. Gokool Chunder Mandal 18 W.R. 58; Bhageeruth Doss v. Chundee Churn 22 W.R. 462; Ramtarak Karati v. Dinanath Mandal 7 B.L.R. 184 : S.C. 24 W.R. 414; and Parbati Charan v. Kali Nath 6 B.L.R. App. 73.


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