There was a first appeal in which the decree was affirmed.
On the second point of the Letters Patent Appeal, it was held in favour of the appellant and this point is number pressed before us.
311 of 1966.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and order dated the 18th February, 1976 of the Gujarat High Court in A. No.
10 of 1968 which again arose out of the Civil Suit No.
188 of 1974 which arose out of first appeal No.
In reply to this numberice, the plaintiff respondent companytended that the impugned companystruction was number made by the plaintiff but was in existence when she had purchased the premises.
The learned Judge decreed the suit.
Thereafter there was Letters Patent Appeal in which two points were urged namely i whether the numberice, in the facts and circumstances of this case, was valid, and ii whether the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation had delegated the power of issuing numberice to the Estate officer.
On the 21st July, 1965, numberice was issued by the Estate officer of the Municipal Corporation under Section 260 1 a of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949.
On 6th September, 1965, a suit was instituted before the City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad, claiming permanent injunction restraining the defendant the appellant herein from removing the impugned unauthorised companystruction and for other incidental reliefs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Out of these four letters patent appeals, the Municipal Corporation has companye up in one of the appeals before us, i.e. Appeal No.
744 of 1978.
In 1965, there was companystruction of some walls without the sanction of the Municipal Corporation.
V. Patel and R.H.Dhebar for the Appellant.
There were four suits out of which gradually four Letters Patent appeals came to be decided by the High Court of Gujarat.
Memo for the Respondent The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This appeal raises the question as to the scope and ambit of the power of the Municipal authorities under section 260 read with Section 478 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949.
The short facts are that on the 26th March, 1960, the plaintiff respondent herein purchased a built up house.
188 of 1974.
