Judgement

Consolidated Appeals from two decrees of the High Court (April 16, 1916), the first affirming a decree, and the second varying a decree, of Davar J. (October 15, 1914).

The consolidated appeals were in two suits in the High Court arising out of the rebuilding of the appellants premises at the corner of Princess Street and Kalbadevi Road, in the city of Bombay. Upon the rebuilding the premises had been set forward in Princess Street and set back in Kalbadevi Road so as to conform with the building lines, and as provided by an order made by the Municipal Commissioner under ss. 298 and 300 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888.

The first suit was instituted by the mother and guardian of the appellant, who was a minor at that time, against the respondent the Municipal Commissioner to recover compensation in respect of the strip of land covered by the original premises in Kalbadevi Road in front of the building line.

The second suit was instituted by the respondents the Trustees for the Improvement of the City of Bombay against the appellant. The trustees alleged that the land in Princess Street over which the premises had been erected upon the rebuilding wa« their property, and they claimed possession.

The strips of land in question in the two suits are for convenience referred to respectively as the set-back land and the set-forward land.

The suits were heard successively by Davar J. In the first he decreed the appellant compensation at Rs.200 per square yard, but upon the view which he took of the appellants conduct he refused to allow him interest or the costs. In the second suit, to which the respondent Commissioner was joined as a third party, the learned judge held that the set-forward land was vested in the respondent trustees, and that they were entitled to eject the appellant. He made a decree for possession, and dismissed the appellants claim against the respondent Commissioner as third party.

The appellant appealed from the first decree so far as it did not give him interest and costs, and from the whole of the second decree.

The learned judges (the Chief Justice and Batch el or J.) affirmed the first decree, and varied the second decree only by ordering that the appellant should be evicted unless by May 15, 1915, he paid to the respondent trustees compensation at Rs.200 per square yard for the set-forward land.

1918. June 13, 14, 17, 18. P. O. Lawrence K.C. and E. B. Raikes for the appellant. In the first suit the appellant was entitled upon the principles applied under the Lands Clauses Act to interest from the date when the corporation obtained possession of the set-back land. The corporation, not having appealed from the decree for compensation, cannot contend that the claim should have been made in the Small Causes Court. In the second suit the trustees were not entitled to sue in ejectment. The appellant was owner of the land ad medium filum of the street ; the vesting in the corporation under s. 289 of the Municipal Act was merely for the purposes of the Act and did not affect the freehold interest Bombay Corporation v. Great Indian Peninsula Ry. (( 1916) L. R. 43 I. A. 310, 314.) But even if the freehold of the street vested in the corporation, the effect of the notice under s. 41 of Bombay Act IV. of 1898 was merely to vest the land in the trustees for the purposes of that Act Rolh v. Vestry of St. George (( 1880) 14 Ch. D. 785, 797.) ; City of London Land Tax Commissioners v. Central London Ry. ([ 1913] A. C. 364, 379.) Upon the trustees abandoning their street scheme, which was before the appellant commenced to rebuild, the set-forward land, if it ever vested in the trustees, revested in the corporation, or at any rate the trustees ceased to have such ail interest as would support the action. By the order of the corporation under s. 300 the appellant was not only authorized, but required under penalties, to rebuild upon the land. Only the corporation had power to make the set-forward order, and