Skip to content


Chedu Singh Vs. Jagan Nath Prasad - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1928All297; 108Ind.Cas.912
AppellantChedu Singh
RespondentJagan Nath Prasad
Excerpt:
- 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 board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under..........case of ramsarup v. dasoda kunwar [1911] 94 all. 158 the learned judge appears to have held the wrong view that a plaintiff can fall back upon a claim for money lent only where a promissory note was taken subsequent to the advancement of the money, the case-law enjoins no such reservation. where a debt may be proved independently of the promissory note, that is, without the assistance of the promissory note in evidence, the plaintiff may be given an opportunity to produce such proof, and on his satisfying the court as to the loan he will be entitled to a decree.2. the learned judge decided the case on a wrong view of law. i, therefore, set aside the decree passed by him and remit the suit to that court for a trial on the merits in accordance with principles of law enunciated above......
Judgment:

Dalal, J.

1. It is apparent that the attention of the Judge of the Court of Small Causes was not drawn to a Bench ruling of this Court in the case of Ramsarup v. Dasoda Kunwar [1911] 94 All. 158 The learned Judge appears to have held the wrong view that a plaintiff can fall back upon a claim for money lent only where a promissory note was taken subsequent to the advancement of the money, The case-law enjoins no such reservation. Where a debt may be proved independently of the promissory note, that is, without the assistance of the promissory note in evidence, the plaintiff may be given an opportunity to produce such proof, and on his satisfying the Court as to the loan he will be entitled to a decree.

2. The learned Judge decided the case on a wrong view of law. I, therefore, set aside the decree passed by him and remit the suit to that Court for a trial on the merits in accordance with principles of law enunciated above. Costs here and heretofore shall a bide the result.


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