PASUMARTHI SUBBARAYA SASTRI Vs. MUKKAMALA SEETHA RAMASWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff brought the suit to eject the defendant from a site and to remove a pial erected by him thereon. The plea of the defendant was that the land belonged to the Municipal Council, that he put up a pial with its permission and that the Municipal Council was a necessary party to the suit. This latter point was raised as issue No. 3 and the objection was repeated in appeal. With regard to issue 3 the trial Court said: According to the plaint allegations, plaintiff exclusively claimed the suit lane as his property. So it is unnecessary for him to implead third party on the contentions raised by the defendant.

(2.) In respect of this its judgment reads throughout as if it were a decision between the plaintiff and the Municipality. The District Munsif says in para. 6: I am constrained in this state of evidence as observed (sic) that plaintiff had made out a better title to the suit lane than the Municipality, and later on in the same paragraph As already observed there is some dispute between plaintiff and Bezwada Municipality about the ownership of this lane. As the available evidence is not before the Court, I am constrained to find in this state of evidence that plaintiff had made out a better title than the Municipality.

(3.) In dealing with this issue the lower appellate Court says: As for the contention of the defendant that it is part of the Municipal lane, there is no proof of it.