BHASKARU PANTALU MANIKYASWAMI Vs. MUDAGAL LAKAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is mamainly concluded by the findings, of fact with which this Court cannot: interfere. It is found that the plaintiff was, obstructed in the temple and that she was never excommunicated in due form, and she has been, granted damages.

(2.) THE short point argued; is whether the claim for damages if time barred. It will be so barred if it, falls within Art. 22 of the Indian Limitation Act. Art. 22 of the Indian Limitation Act runs "For compensation for any other injury to the person" "injury" in this connection has a wider connotation than physical hurts As pointed out in Govind Balkriskna v. Pandurang Vinuyak 15 Ind. Cas. 505 : 36 B. 443 : 14 Bom, L.R. 323, assault, even though it causes no hurt, is an offence affecting the human body under the Indian Penal Code. In Clerk and Lindsell's Law of Torte, Chap. IX which includes all acts of battery assault etc, is headed "Trespass to the person;" and in Velan Pakkiri Taragan V/s. Subbayan Samban 49 Ind. Cas. 533 : 42 M. 271 at p. 278 : 9 L. W. 208 : 25 M.L.T. 39 : 36 M.L.J. 79 : (1919) M.W.N. 46 (F. B.) trespass to the person is held to include voluntary obstruction. So it must be held as a point of law that the obstruction to the plaintiff was technically an injury to her person, and since she has definitely dated her cause of action beyond the limit prescribed in Art. 22, the claim for damages must be held to be time-barred and the decree modified accordingly.