JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal by the defendant Union of India. Plaintiff filed a suit praying that the defendant be ordered to remove the telegraph line going over the plaintiff's house and also claimed damages in a sum of Rs. 360 against the defendant. Plaintiffs case in brief was that he has a house situate in Nagla Dina Fatehgarh in the district of Farrukhabad. The Telegraph Department wanted to carry telegraph line over the plaintiff's house to which the plaintiff objected. The person in-charge of the operation gave in writing that the line was being carried temporarily and would be removed within fifteen days. The line was not removed in spite of repeated requests and letters. The defendant had no right to carry the telegraph line over the house of the plaintiff and the defendant had a land only 15 or 20 yards away from the house of the plaintiff over which the telegraph line could be carried. As a result of the placement of the telegraph line over the plaintiffs property the plaintiff was unable to make use of his roof or to make constructions over it. Consequently, he was suffering damages at the rate of Rs. 10 per month.

2. In its defence the Union of India pleaded that the plaintiff had no cause of action to maintain the suit. The telegraph line could be taken over the plaintiff's house in exercise of the powers under Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). There was no question of giving any undertaking on behalf of the defendant by any servant of the defendant to remove the telegraph line nor Jethu Ram, who is said to have given the alleged writing, was in any way entitled to give such an undertaking. It has also pleaded that Jethu Ram had not given any undertaking. He was an illiterate person. The defendant having acquired the right of user the plaintiff was not entitled to file a suit to get the telegraph line removed. Since the defendant had not taken action under Section 10 of the Act, the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. Lastly, it was alleged that the plaintiff was not entitled to any damage nor was the suit for damages maintainable and in any case the damages were excessive and imaginary. The usual plea of the suit being bad for want of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also taken.

3. The trial court framed six issues. Under issue No. 1 it held that the court has got jurisdiction to try the suit. On issue No. 2 it was held that the defendant had the right to carry the telegraph line over the plaintiffs house. Under issue No. 3 it was held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that Jethu Ram had given any writing to the plaintiff to remove the line within 15 days. It was further held that the plaintiff did not suffer any damages and was not entitled to receive any. On issue No. 6, it was held that the notice served on the Union of India was a valid notice under Section 80, C. P. C. The Court refused the relief prayed for by the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff could seek relief of compensation under Section 10 and could move the District Magistrate under Section 17 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 for the removal or the alteration of the telegraph line from one part of his premises to another. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

4. The plaintiff thereupon filed an appeal. The lower appellate court framed three questions for determinaiton. On the first point it held that the civil court has got jurisdiction to try the suit On the second point it was held that the plaintiff had suffered damages and was also entitled to recover damages in this very suit. The appeal was allowed. Suit of the plaintiff was decreed and the respondent Union of India was directed to remove the telegraph line in question from its present place and to place the said telegraph line in the direction shown by the letters YDEFO in the Amin's map papager No. 40-C over another portion of the plaintiff appellant's land and building at a height of at le