Skip to content


Devalji Rau Vs. President, Municipal Commission - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1895)ILR18Mad503
AppellantDevalji Rau
RespondentPresident, Municipal Commission
Cases Referred and Mason v. Birkenhead Improvement Commissioners
Excerpt:
city of madras municipal act (madras) - act i of 1884, section 433--notice of action. - 1. we are of opinion that the letter of the plaintiff is not a sufficient notice within the meaning of the 433rd section of the city of madras municipal act of 1884. it is insufficient because it omits to state the place or street in which the house alleged to be demolished stood, as also the time of the alleged demolition. further, the letter does not positively state that an action will be brought. see breese v. jerdein 4 q.b. 585; 12 l.j. q.b. 234 and mason v. birkenhead improvement commissioners 6 h. & n. 72.2. it is unnecessary to answer the second question.3. barclay, morgan & orr: attorneys for defendant.
Judgment:

1. We are of opinion that the letter of the plaintiff is not a sufficient notice within the meaning of the 433rd Section of the City of Madras Municipal Act of 1884. It is insufficient because it omits to state the place or street in which the house alleged to be demolished stood, as also the time of the alleged demolition. Further, the letter does not positively state that an action will be brought. See Breese v. Jerdein 4 Q.B. 585; 12 L.J. Q.B. 234 and Mason v. Birkenhead Improvement Commissioners 6 H. & N. 72.

2. It is unnecessary to answer the second question.

3. Barclay, Morgan & Orr: Attorneys for Defendant.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //