1. This appeal is mainly concluded by the findings of fact with which this Court cannot interfere. It is found that the plaintiff was obstructed in the temple and that she was never excommunicated in due form, and she has been granted damages.
2. The short point argued is whether the claim for damages is time barred. It will be so barred if it falls within Article 22, Lim. Act. Article 22, Lim. Act, runs: “For compensation for any other injury to the person.” “Injury” in this connexion has a wider connotation than physical hurt. As pointed out in Govind Balakrishna v. Pandurang Vinayakar  36 Bom. 443 assault, even though it causes no hurt is an offence affecting the human body under Penal Code. In Clerk and Lindsell’s Law of Torts, Chapter 9, which includes all acts of battery, assault, etc., is headed “Trespass to the Person;” and in Velum Pakkiri Taragan v. Subbayan Samban  42 Mad. 271, at p. 278, trespass to the person is held to include voluntary obstruction. So it must be held as a point of law that the obstruction to the plaintiff was technically an injury to her person, and since she has definitely dated her cause of action beyond the limit prescribed in Article 22 the claim for damages must be held to be time barred and the decree modified accordingly. No costs.