MUNICIPAL COUNCIL RAJAMUNDRY Vs. SIMHADRI RANGANAYAKALU
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, RAJAMUNDRY
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The main question in this second appeal is whether the Government is a necessary party to the suit.
(2.) The relevant facts are: The plaintiff is the owner of the property described in the plaint scheudle and the house bearing Door No. 236 in the 15th Ward of the Rajamundry Municipality. His father and uncle purchased, the same under a sale- deed, dated 30-6-1901, from one Kotta Manikyam. the defendant, the Municipal Council of Rajamundry, through its Commissioner, issued a notice to the plaintiff directing him to remove the pials, stone pavement and the tilled eaves of his house on the ground that they were encroachments on the public street. To avoid the execution of the threatened action, the plaintiff filed O. S. No. 40 of 1949 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Rajamundry, against the Municipality for a declaration of his title and for a persmanent injunction retraining the Municipality from intergfering with his possession.
(3.) The defendant, inter alia, contended that Goveernment was a necessary party to the suit and also the suit was barred by reason of S. 14, Madras Survey and Boundaries Act.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.