NATHALAL RAMDAS VAGHJI Vs. NADIAD MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is one of the several companion appeals which we have to decide; but it will be convenient to deal with this appeal first before considering what orders should be passed in the other appeals. It arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs for a declaration that a certain land situated at Nadiad was of their ownership and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant Municipality from obstructing them in their enjoyment thereof. The occasion for the suit was that in pursuance of a resolution passed by the Nadiad City Municipality, the Government had, in accordacne with the provisions in the Bombay Land Revenue Code, directed a survey within the Municipal limits of the town of Bombay, and the City Survey Officer had hold that the land in question was a "street land," as defined in Section 3, Clause 12 under the Bombay District Municipal Act (Bom. Act III of 1001). That would involve the result that the Municipality would have certain rights in respect of the site in question under the Bombay District Municipal Act, and the whole purpose of the suit was to prevent the Municipality from interfering with the plaintiffs enjoyment of this site. With that view a declaration and an injunction as stated above were sought by the plaintiffs.

(2.) The defendant Municipality raised several objections to the suit, but no objection was raised that the suit was defective for want of a necessary or proper party. Four preliminary issues were raised : 1. Whether the plaintiffs claim is time-barred? 2. Whether the plaintiffs suit is barred under Section 167 of the District Municipal Act?

(3.) When the disputed site is decided to be a street land, whether it vesta in and belongs to the Municipality? Whether Government and street people have any and what interest therein? Whether this suit can be heard in their absence? When Government is held to be a necessary party, whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear this suit?