SUKHDEO PRASAD Vs. NIHAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs, Sukhdeo Prasad and Ganeshi Lal, who represent themselves as residents of Shamshabad, brought a suit against one Lala Nihal Chand in which they prayed that an injunction be issued upon the defendant preventing him from commencing any new hat within the limits of the five mahals of the village Shamshabad and from interfering with the plaintiffs rights. They also asked for damages. The case, as stated by them in the plaint is that from time immemorial the plaintiffs and their ancestors have the exclusive privilege of holding markets within the entire area of the five mahals of the village Shamshabad, and of collecting chaudharahat dues on all articles and live-stock sold within that area either on market days or any other occasions. They further alleged that from time immemorial no other market has been held within that area; that on or about 21st July 1901, the defendant has started a new market within that area, and within the distance of a few yards of the old market place, and has been collecting chaudharahat dues upon cattle and articles sold.

(2.) In reply the defendant contends that he is the owner and zamindar of the mahal within which, and of the land on which, he has held a hat, and that he has a perfect right to hold the hat on his own land and within his own area, and the plaintiffs have no right to impeach his acts. He puts the plaintiffs generally to strict proof of the allegations contained in the plaint, most of which he expressly denies. He adds that the hat complained of is held on land appertaining to mauza Patti Siktara and not to Shamshabad. The Court below dismissed the plaintiff's suit with the exception of the claim for damages, which it allowed, upon the ground that the defendant had made use of improper means to force buyers and sellers from going to the plaintiffs hat and compel them to go to his own hat

(3.) The pleas taken in appeal are three in number: (1) That upon the evidence it has been proved that the plaintiffs are the Chaudhris of mauza Shamshabad, which includes Patti Siktara, and they have the exclusive right to hold the market within that area and to realize the bazar dues; (2) that the right claimed has been proved to be an ancient and immemorial one; (3) that the plaintiffs have proved the full amount of damages claimed by them.