Abnold White, C.J.

1. In this case the plaintiff sued for an injunction to restrain the defendants (the Municipal Commissioners for the City of Madras) from continuing to use a certain plot of ground as a burning and burial ground, and he claimed damages for special injury which he alleged he had sustained by reason of the use of the ground in question as a burning and burial ground.

2. The first question for consideration is whether the evidence shows that the use of the ground as a burning and burial ground constitutes an actionable nuisance.

3. The second issue in the case is whether the user of the defendants land in the manner alleged in the plaint is a nuisance to the plaintiff and is as such actionable? The finding of the learned Judge upon this issue was in the negative.

4. In the Court below the plaintiff sought to make out that the water in his well had become polluted by reason of corpses having been buried in close proximity to his well, and that the smoke and smell from the burning corpses amounted to a nuisance and had caused his property to deteriorate in value.

5. With regard to the alleged pollution of water, the plaintiff stated that corpses have been buried wi