Bombay High Court
Gehanaji Bin Kes Patil And Ors. vs Ganpati Bin Lakshuman And Ors. on 12 August, 1875
Equivalent citations: (1877)ILR 2BOM469
JUDGMENT Michael Westropp, C.J.
1. In order to sustain this action, the plaintiffs were bound to show that they themselves had suffered some particular inconvenience by the conduct of the defendants: Baroda Prasad v. Gora Chand (3 Beng. L.R., 295 A.C.J.; S.C. 12. Cal. W.R., 160 Civ. Rul:), per Peacock, C.J., followed in Raj Luckhee Debia v. Chander Kant Chawdry (14 Beng. L.R., 173). The case of Jina Ranchod v. Jodha Ghela (l Bom; H.C. Rep. 1) does not seem to be inconsistent with this. The statement of facts in the report of that case is meagre, but we gather from the argument that some injury to the plaintiff, personally arising from the obstruction complained of, must have been alleged. The plaint in the present case having been read to us, we fail to perceive that any particular injury, resulting to the plaintiffs themselves, is alleged on their behalf; we must, therefore, affirm with costs the decrees of the Courts below which rejected their suit.