Skip to content


Anupa Kunwar Vs. Achhaibar Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1915)ILR37All97
AppellantAnupa Kunwar
RespondentAchhaibar Singh and ors.
Excerpt:
construction of decree - execution of decree--decree for maintenance based on an arbitration award. - 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..........for possession of the land should be passed in favour of achhaibar singh and others, and that anupa kunwar should receive from achhaibar singh and others eleven maunds odd of grain and rs. 14 in cash by way of maintenance to be paid in half-yearly instalments. anupa kunwar has now applied to the revenue court to execute so much of the decree mentioned above as relates to the maintenance payable to her. the revenue court being doubtful whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the application has referred this case to this court under section 195 of the tenancy act. the award, which is incorporated in the decree of this court, provides that if the maintenance due to anupa kunwar is not paid she may enforce payment by taking proceedings in a competent court (ba-ckarajoi adalat majaz.....
Judgment:

Chamier and Piggott, JJ.

A suit for ejectment brought by Achhaibar Singh and others against Anupa Kunwar in a Eevenue Court came up to this Court in second appeal and was settled in accordance with an arbitration award. The award provided that a decree for possession of the land should be passed in favour of Achhaibar Singh and others, and that Anupa Kunwar should receive from Achhaibar Singh and others eleven maunds odd of grain and Rs. 14 in cash by way of maintenance to be paid in half-yearly instalments. Anupa Kunwar has now applied to the Revenue Court to execute so much of the decree mentioned above as relates to the maintenance payable to her. The Revenue Court being doubtful whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the application has referred this case to this Court under Section 195 of the Tenancy Act. The award, which is incorporated in the decree of this Court, provides that if the maintenance due to Anupa Kunwar is not paid she may enforce payment by taking proceedings in a competent court (ba-ckarajoi adalat majaz hasb zabta). It seems to us that the persons who drew up the award knew that there would be difficulty in executing a decree for maintenance in a Revenue Court and therefore, instead of providing that enforcement of the decree should be by proceedings in the execution department, they provided that Anupa Kunwar should take proceedings in a competent court). We regard this portion of the decree as merely declaratory of Anupa Kunwar's rights to receive maintenance. In our opinion she should bring a regular suit in the Civil Court to enforce her right to maintenance. Section 195, Sub-section (3) of the Tenancy Act provides 'on any such reference being made the High Court may order the court either to proceed with the case, or to return the plaint, application or appeal for presentation to such other court as it may declare to be competent to try the same.' It seems to us that we should not take either of these courses. In our opinion the application for execution should be dismissed. With this expression of opinion we direct that the papers be returned to the court which has made this reference.


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