Skip to content


Sukhdeo Ahir and anr. Vs. Baldeo Ahir and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1949All536
AppellantSukhdeo Ahir and anr.
RespondentBaldeo Ahir and anr.
Excerpt:
.....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 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..........no jurisdiction but that it was the revenue court which alone had jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the provisions of section 10 of the said act. the point taken was that as the mortgage money under every one of the five deeds was below rs. 100 (rs. 500?) it was only the revenue court which could entertain the suit. the courts below repelled this plea on the view that the aggregate mortgage money under all the five deeds being in excess of rs. 500, the civil court was vested with jurisdiction to try the suit. on a consideration of the language of section 10 of this act, we are of opinion that the expression 'the principal money' in that section necessarily has reference to the amount secured under a single mortgage transaction. it does not refer to the aggregate mortgage.....
Judgment:

Mushtaq Ahmad, J.

1. This is a defendants' application in revision against a decree passed in proceedings for redemption under Section 12. U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act.

2. The claim for redemption was made in respect of five mortgages of different dates made by the same person against different members of a joint Hindu family. It is now agreed that not only the mortgagor under the various mortgages was the same, but also the mortgagees under them had joint interests in the mortgagee rights.

3. One of the pleas taken in defence was that the civil Court before which the suit had been filed had no jurisdiction but that it was the revenue Court which alone had jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the provisions of Section 10 of the said Act. The point taken was that as the mortgage money under every one of the five deeds was below Rs. 100 (Rs. 500?) it was only the revenue Court which could entertain the suit. The Courts below repelled this plea on the view that the aggregate mortgage money under all the five deeds being in excess of Rs. 500, the civil Court was vested with jurisdiction to try the suit. On a consideration of the language of Section 10 of this Act, we are of opinion that the expression 'the principal money' in that section necessarily has reference to the amount secured under a single mortgage transaction. It does not refer to the aggregate mortgage money that may be secured under a number of deeds executed by the same person in favour of the same person or persons. We, therefore, think that the view taken by the Court below was not correct and that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

4. We accordingly set aside the order of the lower appellate Court and direct that the plaint be returned by the trial Court for presentation to the proper Court. The other side is not represented. We, therefore, make no order as to costs.


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