Skip to content


JagnaraIn Kunbi and ors. Vs. Gaya Kunbi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1930All426
AppellantJagnaraIn Kunbi and ors.
RespondentGaya Kunbi and ors.
Excerpt:
.....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 school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the..........against a decree for redemption of the mortgage held by the defendants as mortgagees on a certain occupancy holding. the defendants claim that the plaintiffs are not entitled to redeem this mortgage. the original mortgage was executed on chait sudi 13, 1894 for rs. 199 by ahlad in favour of bhukhan and prithi. bhukhan and prithi are the ancestors of the defendants. it is found as a fact by the lower appeallate court that ahlad is a collateral of the plaintiffs but that the plaintiffs did not share in cultivation of ahlad. on the death of ahlad the zamindar accepted the plaintiffs as his successors in the occupancy holding and in a suit for enhancement of the rent of this holding in 1915 the zamindars made defendants as mortgagees and plaintiffs as mortgagors parties to the suit. we are.....
Judgment:

1. This is a letters patent appeal by the defendants against a decree for redemption of the mortgage held by the defendants as mortgagees on a certain occupancy holding. The defendants claim that the plaintiffs are not entitled to redeem this mortgage. The original mortgage was executed on Chait Sudi 13, 1894 for Rs. 199 by Ahlad in favour of Bhukhan and Prithi. Bhukhan and Prithi are the ancestors of the defendants. It is found as a fact by the lower appeallate Court that Ahlad is a collateral of the plaintiffs but that the plaintiffs did not share in cultivation of Ahlad. On the death of Ahlad the zamindar accepted the plaintiffs as his successors in the occupancy holding and in a suit for enhancement of the rent of this holding in 1915 the zamindars made defendants as mortgagees and plaintiffs as mortgagors parties to the suit. We are of opinion that when zamindar accepted the plaintiffs as successors to Ahlad in this occupancy tenancy the plaintiffs did in fact succeed to Ahlad and it is not open to the defendants as mortgagees to claim that succession should be set aside. The relation of landlord and tenant is defined by Section 4. Act 2 of 1901 as a contract between the landholder and the tenant.

2. Accordingly we consider that the point raised by this appeal has no force and we dismiss this letters patent appeal with costs.


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