Skip to content


Kurusu Kostha and ors. Vs. Thommai Savarimuthu Fernand Suthaki and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1910)20MLJ367
AppellantKurusu Kostha and ors.
RespondentThommai Savarimuthu Fernand Suthaki and ors.
Excerpt:
- - they complain of obstruction by certain constructions made by the defendants who represent the church of the holy ghost on a part of the public road in front of their church.1. this is a hopeless case. the plaintiffs are certain of the worshippers of st. jacob's church. they complain of obstruction by certain constructions made by the defendants who represent the church of the holy ghost on a part of the public road in front of their church. it is said that the result of this new construction will be to obstruct the plaintiffs' view of a curusady--a pillar of brick and mortar with a cross on it--and their procession on the public roadway round the curusady.2. we are unable to see what right the plaintiffs have to represent the church of st: jacob. we do not see what connection the curusady has with the church of st. jacob. the view of the curusady is no part of the ritual of the church. it is found that there is no established practice of an individual.....
Judgment:

1. This is a hopeless case. The plaintiffs are certain of the worshippers of St. Jacob's Church. They complain of obstruction by certain constructions made by the defendants who represent the Church of the Holy Ghost on a part of the public road in front of their church. It is said that the result of this new construction will be to obstruct the plaintiffs' view of a curusady--a pillar of brick and mortar with a cross on it--and their procession on the public roadway round the curusady.

2. We are unable to see what right the plaintiffs have to represent the church of St: Jacob. We do not see what connection the curusady has with the church of St. Jacob. The view of the curusady is no part of the ritual of the church. It is found that there is no established practice of an individual worshipper crossing himself at the sight of the curusady. Even if there was such a practice, we cannot say he is entitled to the protection of the intervening public roadway being kept clear of all obstruction to the view. We think the Judge is right in holding that no special damage has been shewn to give the plaintiffs a right of action. The plaintiffs are not the trustees of the church of St. Jacob. They have not gone in procession round and suffered from the obstruction any special damage.

4. Nor can we say that a possible obstruction to a procession would be a special damage.

5. We must dismiss the second appeal with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //