JUDGMENT

Mukerji, J. - This is the plaintiff's appeal. His house abuts on a blind lane. He constructed a cornice projecting from the front wall of his house and over this lane. The Municipal Board gave a notice to the plaintiffs to remove the cornice. The plaintiff disputed their right to issue such notice and instituted the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen.

2. The Court of first instance decreed the suit, but a learned Subordinate Judge on appeal dismissed it. He held that maintenance of the suit was barred having regard to the provisions of Section 321 of the Municipalities Act, 1916. He also held that the Municipal Board were within their right in issuing the notice and that the lane in question was a public street within the meaning of Section 2, Clause 19 of the Municipalities Act.

3. In this Court it has been contended that the suit is not barred and that the finding of the Court below that the lane was a public street was not justified. There can be no doubt that the jurisdiction of the Municipal Board to issue a notice u/s 211 of the Municipalities Act would depend on whether or not the projection complained of overhangs a street. Where a projection does not overhang