S SUNDARAM AYYAR Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF MADURA AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA IN COUNCIL
LAWS(PVC)-1901-12-15
PRIVY COUNCIL
Decided on December 13,1901

S SUNDARAM AYYAR Appellant
VERSUS
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF MADURA AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA IN COUNCIL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Bhashyam Ayyangar, J - (1.) In the plaint, the plaintiff claims as owner three items of property, each of which he describes as a plot of certain dimensions with the granite pial built thereon, immediately to the east of his dwelling house and to the west of the street and prays that a permanent injunction may be issued restraining the defendant (the Municipal Council of Madura) "from interfering with or from causing obstruction to the plaint sites, from removing the granite pials built on the plaint sites or from taking any steps to remove the same."
(2.) The defendant, in his written statement, states that the slab-stones, which the plaintiff was required to remove, have been only recently put up, that as the defendant has all along been using the drain below the slab-stone the plaintiff cannot acquire any prescriptive right against the defendant, that the construction in question, being admittedly a projection over the drain in front of plaintiff's house, the defendant has every right to remove the same under Section 168 of Act IV of 1884 (as amended by Act III of 1897) and that as the defendant is only carrying out the orders of the Local Government in removing the slab-stones, with a view to introducing a drainage scheme for the whole town,, the plaintiff is not entitled to the injunction prayed for.
(3.) Issues were framed as to whether the plaintiff has acquired any and what right in the said pial and whether it was competent for the defendant to remove the pial and whether the plaintiff was entitled to the injunction sought for. The District Munsif finds that the pial has been in existence for the last thirty years at least, that it does not in any way interfere with the cleaning of the drain under it and that the pial also projects a little into the street beyond the drain and that the plaintiff having acquired a right by adverse possession is entitled to the injunction sought for. The District Munsif, in meeting certain arguments advanced on behalf of the defendant, observes that the ground over which the pial is built forms portion of the street and that the public could not. use such portion for any purpose, that though there is a drain under the pial in a portion of it, the "major portion of it is ground" and that the plaintiff does not claim any right over the drain and "the question is with regard to the land.";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.