The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability for negligence in maintaining a compound wall leading to a fatal accident, and the calculation of damages for loss of maintenance under the Fatal Accidents Act 1855.

Gentle, J.

1. These are two suits brought and or the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act 1855, and by consent of all parties have been tried together as the facts in regard to both claims are identical save in respect of the damages which are claimed. In C. Section No. 96 of 1934 the plaintiff is the widow of one Venkataswami Naidu. In C.S. No. 445 of 1934 plaintiff 1 is the widow and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the minor children of one Saman. The claims in both suits are for damages representing the loss of maintenance which the respective plaintiffs allege that they have sustained on account of the death of the two deceased who were the wage-earners of their respective families. There has been a considerable body of evidence given in these suits, none of which is very reliable and all the witnesses exaggerated in their evidence, what, I have come to the conclusion, were the real facts. 1st defendants own land in Walltax Road upon which is erected a railway station and permanent way. This is bordered on Wall-tax road by a wall of the total length of about 3,000 feet running approximately north and south. So far as this case is concerned, a small portion only of that wall is affected, some 300 or 400 yards north of the railway station. At this point there was erected a public latrine. The latrine was 58 feet 6 inches in length and having an overall width of 16 feet. The railway wall, which I will hereafter refer to as the compound wall, formed the western boundary of the latrine. There were two walls, being the north and south boundaries running at right angles to the compound wall and joining to it. These two walls were about 16 feet in length. The eastern boundary of the latrine was formed by a wall joining the outer ends of the north and south walls. The latrine was divided into two parts by a central wall running parallel to the compound wall and to the eastern wall of the latrine. This wall was about 58 feet 6 inches in length. The compound wall was about 10 or 11 feet high and the other walls I have mentioned were about 6 feet 6 inches in height. The entrance to the latrine was gained by two openings made in the north wall. The access to the latrine from Wall-tax road was gained by means of a passage from that road leading to the latrine, the distance from the road to the latrine being about 53 feet and around the north, east and south boundaries of the latrine, there was an open space leading from the passage I have mentioned. This latrine was erected by 2nd defendants. Under Section 184, Madras City Municipal Act 1919, it is provided as follows:

The Corporation shall provide and maintain in proper and convenient places a sufficient number of public latrines and shall cause the same to be kept clean and in proper order.

2. It is admitted by all parties that this latrine is one coming within the provisions of the above section and therefore it was a latrine belonging to the 2nd defendants, the Corporation, for which they were responsible as set out in the above section. At about 8 a.m. on 16th December 1933, the two deceased men I have mentioned were using the latrine and for that purpose were in the eastern or outer portion. The 1st defendants compound wall fell and in falling knocked over the central wall of the latrine. These two men were killed by the falling of these two walls. The part of the compound wall which fell included not only the 58 feet 6 inches bordering the latrine but also about 10 feet on the north and south sides, in all about 80 feet of the compound wall fell. The claims against the two defendants are based upon negligence and nuisance. So far as the 1st defendants are concerned, in C.S. No. 96 of 1934 it is alleged that they left the relevant portion of the compound wall in a state of disrepair and were therefore negligent. After the close of all the evidence and indeed after the counsel on behalf of the two defendants had addressed me, an application was made by counsel on behalf of the plainti