Victor, C.J.

1. This is a point of some little interest. A man called Subramanya Chetti started a suit lor damages for malicious prosecution and in his plaint he claimed a sum of money by way of general damages and he also claimed special damage under two heads. The first was vakils fees and the second was travelling and other incidental expenses for securing the attendance of witnesses for the purpose of defending the prosecution which was launched against him. We will take it that that prosecution failed, and, had this unfortunate man lived, he would have got substantial damages against the defendant which would have included the special damage alleged to have been incurred by him. As a matter of fact he died while the suit was pending and when the suit actually came on for trial before the learned Subordinate Judge it was proposed to continue the action with his executor or legal representative substituted as the plaintiff. The learned Judge held that that could not be done and we agree with him.

2. The thing can be put in two ways: (1) on a narrower, and (2) on a broader ground. The narrower ground is this: that his cause of action throughout is the tortious act of which