Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit for an injunction to restrain the defendant Municipality from constructing a public latrine behind the plaintiffs fruit stall in Madura. Both the lower Courts have concurrently found that the erection of a latrine would constitute a nuisance to the plaintiff and held that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief claimed. Hence this appeal by the Municipality.

2. The finding that the erection of a latrine is a nuisance to the plaintiff is a finding of fact and cannot therefore be challenged in second appeal. The contention of Mr. Rajah Aiyar who appeared for the appellant is that under the District Municipalities Act the Municipality is empowered to construct public latrines in suitable places and Section 145 of that Act confers on them such a right and that no action can lie against them. The question is whether this contention is tenable. Section 145 of the District Municipalities Act runs thus:

The Council, shall, as far as the funds at its disposal may admit, provide and maintain in proper and convenient places a sufficient number of public latrines and shall cause the same to be daily cleansed and kept in pr