In Brief
The appellant sued to challenge a municipal corporation's changing of street alignment and construction activities affecting his property, but claimed inadequate reliefs without properly proving ownership. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding the suit misconceived and improperly pleaded. The Court held the appellant must first prove ownership of the land and then prove unlawful interference without due process. Since he failed to plead these essential facts and instead claimed improper reliefs, the dismissal was justified. However, the Court granted liberty to file a fresh suit with proper pleadings, evidence, and appropriate reliefs, which would be tried independently without prior findings affecting it.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.