AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Both courts have found that the land in dispute is the private property of the plaintiff. We do not think that Section 156 of the Madras Act V of
1884 applies. The cases contemplated in that section are suits for compensation or for damages ; and the principle is to allow public bodies time
for tender of amends to the parties so as to avoid litigation. See Chunder Sikhur Bundopadhya v. Obhoy Ohurn Bagchi I. L. R 6 C 8 followed in
S. A. No. 1476 of 1891, and Price v. Khilat Chandra Ghose, 5 B. L. R App. 50 ; Sorabji Nassarvanji Dundas v, The Justices of the Peace for
the City of Bombay 12 B. H. C. R 250 ; and Joharmal v. The Municipality of Ahmednagaf I. L. R 6 B 580.
This principle cannot apply where the object of the suit is to obtain a declaration of title to immovable property and for an injunction to restrain
interference with immovable property.
No questions as to misdescription or defect of parties are taken in the courts below and the point does not affect the merits of the case.
The second appeal is dismissed with costs.