Skip to content


Govind Rao Vs. Gouri Shanker - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1949All538
AppellantGovind Rao
RespondentGouri Shanker
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..........of the two other cases that we have just decided. in this case a sum of rs. 300 was borrowed under a mortgage dated 12th may 1882, and some property was given in security. on the security of the same property there was a further advance of rs. 231-9-9, and this second advance was tacked on to the first advance and the mortgage deed provided that the mortgagor would not be entitled to redeem the first mortgage without paying the amount, due under the second mortgage. the two documents, therefore, practically constituted a single transaction.2. we therefore dismiss this application, but make no order as to costs.
Judgment:

Mushtaq Ahmad, J.

1. We do not propose to interfere in this revision. The parties made a joint statement that a sum of Rs. 300 was dug under the two mortgages. Moreover, the facts of this case are distinguishable from the facts of the two other cases that we have just decided. In this case a sum of Rs. 300 was borrowed under a mortgage dated 12th May 1882, and some property was given in security. On the security of the same property there was a further advance of Rs. 231-9-9, and this second advance was tacked on to the first advance and the mortgage deed provided that the mortgagor would not be entitled to redeem the first mortgage without paying the amount, due under the second mortgage. The two documents, therefore, practically constituted a single transaction.

2. We therefore dismiss this application, but make no order as to costs.


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