1. On a perusal of paragraphs 8 and 9 of the plaint (the plaintiff referring in paragraph 9 to a petition which he gave to the Deputy Tahsildar, a Revenue Officer whose duty is to look after public paths running through Porambokes) and of the judgment of the lower Appellate Court, we have no doubt that the path in question is a public path.
2. It is clear law that an individual member of the public has no cause of action to bring a separate suit in respect of an obstruction to a public way without both alleging and proving special damage of a substantial character. The allegation of damage in the plaint is very vague and indefinite and is wholly insufficient to sustain a separate suit. See Khaji Sayyad Hussain Sahib v. Ediga Narasimhappa 16 Ind. Cas. 962 : 12 M.L.T. 491 : (1913) M.W.N. 991 : 23 M.L.J. 539 and Kandasawmy Kovundan v. Karupanna Kovundan 21 Ind. Cas. 601 : (1913) M.W.N. 1001 : 14 M.L.T. 509 .
3. The second appeal is dismissed with costs