Skip to content


Chitar Singh Vs. Th. Roshan Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1943All301
AppellantChitar Singh
RespondentTh. Roshan Singh
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..........on his mortgage, and his suit was decreed. subsequently the applicants applied under section 8, debt redemption act, but their application has been dismissed. they have now come in revision to this court; but i am informed that one of them has since compromised the matter with the opposite party.2. the point for decision is whether the sum of rs. 7320 remaining due under the sale deed was or was not a loan within the meaning of section 2 (9), debt redemption act. i think there can be no doubt that it was not. it was the unpaid balance of the sale consideration and cannot be regarded as a loan, whether technically or substantially. learned counsel for the applicant who has not compromised seeks to distinguish the case in mohammad shibli khan v. ish datt dikshit : air1939all398 , but i.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Collister, J.

1. On 20th March 1926, the opposite party's transferor sold certain property to the applicants for Rs. 28,000. A balance of Rs. 7360 remained unpaid and for this the applicants on the same date executed a mortgage in favour of the vendor in respect to a portion of the property sold. Ultimately the opposite party sued on his mortgage, and his suit was decreed. Subsequently the applicants applied under Section 8, Debt Redemption Act, but their application has been dismissed. They have now come in revision to this Court; but I am informed that one of them has since compromised the matter with the opposite party.

2. The point for decision is whether the sum of Rs. 7320 remaining due under the sale deed was or was not a loan within the meaning of Section 2 (9), Debt Redemption Act. I think there can be no doubt that it was not. It was the unpaid balance of the sale consideration and cannot be regarded as a loan, whether technically or substantially. Learned Counsel for the applicant who has not compromised seeks to distinguish the case in Mohammad Shibli Khan v. Ish Datt Dikshit : AIR1939All398 , but I do not think there is any difference in principle. I dismiss the application with costs.


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