LAWS(PVC)-1920-4-28

HEM CHANDRA ROY CHOWDHURY Vs. KRISTO CHANDRA SAHA SARDAR ON HIS DEATH HIS HEIRS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, BEPIN BEHART SAHA SARDAR

Decided On April 15, 1920
HEM CHANDRA ROY CHOWDHURY Appellant
V/S
KRISTO CHANDRA SAHA SARDAR ON HIS DEATH HIS HEIRS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, BEPIN BEHART SAHA SARDAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Dacca, dated the 9th October 1917. The plaintiff is the proprietor of a hat known as the Ramchandradi hat, in the sense that the hat is held within a revenue estate belonging to him and that he derives certain profits from it. The Sardar defendants are neighbouring proprietors and, in February, 1 12, they set up a new hat at Gopaldi, within two miles of the plaintiff s hat. There is some controversy as to the details of the circumstances in which the new hat came to be established. The main facts, however, are not in dispute. In the plaintiff s hat, the right of collecting the dues payable by the stall-holders was farmed out to Ijaradars. One of these Ijaradars was Govinda Chandra Dhur Amongst the people who had stalls were a number of Jugis, or cloth sellers, of whom some are co-defendants with the Sardars in this suit. It appears that the Jugis felt themselves aggrieved because the Ijaradar Govinda was collecting subscriptions for the celebration of the Kali Puja at a rate double the rate which had prevailed in previous years. The Jugis, or some of them, in deputation, went to the plaintiff s Naib, Kausiki Charan Chakraburty, and preferred a complaint. If we accept the plaintiff s version of this part of the case, as we may without the result being affected, the Jugis not only complained of having to pay the subscription demanded from them but also demanded the "dismissal" of the Ijaradar. The Naib having refused to dismiss the Ijaradar, the Jugie, who had previously approached the Sardar defendants, went on the next market day to Gopaldi and began selling their cloths there. That was the origin of the new hat which, like the Rim Chandradi hat, has since been held every Thursday. It is not now disputed that the Sardars did much to encourage traders to some to their market and the result was that their hat flourished with a corresponding diminution in the profits which the plaintiff received from his hat.

(2.) In the period following the establishment of the new hat, affairs took the course which they often take in these cases. There were breaches of the peace between the rival parties or, at any rate allegations, of breaches of the peace which led to proceedings in the Criminal Courts in the nature of a preliminary trial of strength. It was not till those proceedings had ended adversely to the plaintiff, or those siding with him, that in November, 1914, he instituted the present suit.

(3.) In his plaint the plaintiff alleged a conspiracy between the Sardar defendants and the Jugis, and the employment of illegal means for the purpose of inducing traders to attend the Gopaldi hat and not to attend the Ram Chandradi hat. On this footing, plaintiff claimed damages. He also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from doing various things. The injunction was to restrain the defendants not only from employing illegal means but also from holding a market or hat on Thursdays or on any other day at Gopaldi or any other place within two miles of the plaintiff s hat.