JUDGMENT : Stanley, J. Both the courts below seem to us to have entirely misconceived the rights of the respective parties to this litigation. The plaintiff, Raja Mahimaranjan Roy, by this suit claims to be declared-entitled to and in possession of certain land, which according to the map which is before us, is bounded on all sides by the property of the Raja. Apparently it is a lane which ends in a cul de sac. At the end which is open, is a small piece of land which abuts upon the public road and which it is found has been paved at the expense of the Raja. Therefore, apparently the piece of land in dispute representing the land ending in the cul de sac is bounded by the Raja's property. It appears that the Raja constructed a gate at the end of this passage with a view to prevent the trespass of cattle, The Municipality of Benares regarding this disputed piece of land as the property of Government, served a notice upon the Raja under section 88 of the Municipalities Act, Act I of 1900, requiring the Raja to remove the gate., He declined to do so, and instituted the present suit for a declaration of his title to the property, and with a view to prevent interference on the part of the Municipality with his alleged rights. 2. The learned Subordinate Judge found the land in question was a public road and was not the property of the Raja, and that, therefore, the Board was competent to issue a notice under-section 88, and that the present suit whs not maintainable. It is difficult to understand, having regard to the position of this piece of land, surrounded as it is with houses and dwellings belonging to the Raja, to whom other than the Raja it could belong. It is equally difficult to see what possible benefit the possession of it could be to Government or any one other than the Raja. On appeal by the plaintiff the District Judge did not think it necessary to determine the question of title. It is equally difficult to see what possible benefit the possession of it could be to Government or any one other than the Raja. On appeal by the plaintiff the District Judge did not think it necessary to determine the question of title. He came to the conclusion that the only course open to the Raja, having regard to the fact that a notice had been served on him under section 88, and an order passed thereon for the removal of the gate, was that provided for aggrieved persons by section 152 of the Act and that the order of the Board could not be called in question otherwise than by an appeal under the provisions of that section. In this the learned District Judge appears to us to be entirely in error. 3. It is the right of every subject of His Majesty to institute a suit in respect of the title to property in His Majesty's Courts, and that right cannot be in any way circumscribed by the provisions of a local Act, such as the Municipalities Act. The learned Government Advocate has not been able to point to any authority for the proposition that the local Act has so far reaching an effect as has been given to it by the learned District Judge. It appears to us that once a bonafide question of title of property has been raised by a party who claims such title, the civil courts are the proper courts to adjudicate upon the claim, and the fight to litigate in the civil courts is in no way curtailed or defeated by the provisions of the section to which we have referred; or by any Municipal Bye-law. We therefore allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the learned Judge, and remand the appeal under the provisions of section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the lower appellate court with directions that it be replaced in the file of pending appeals and be disposed of according to law, with reference to the observations made in our judgment. The costs here and heretofore will abide the event.