SIDHGOPAL Vs. TARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff claimed payment for the defendant's cattle having grazed in his malguzari jangal, and much time was wasted over the futile and disingenuous plea that there was no jangal in the village, but only banjar. There was never any question about the land to which the claim referred, and indeed it seems that it could be properly described neither as jangal nor banjar but as bir.

(2.) THE claim against the respondent, Tara Teli, was in respect of twenty head of cattle that had grazed on the plain-tiff's land, each in one year of the last three. For this the plaintiff claimed one rupee a head, and the defendant admitted the rate to be correct but denied that any cattle of his ever grazed on the plaintiff's land. The plaintiff further claimed Rs. 3.8.0 for each of the defendant's cattle which had been put in his kotha at night, and as he alleged, supplied with grass by him. The total of the sums claimed was Rs. 90.

(3.) THE findings of both the Courts below are these : The defendants' cattle did graze on the plaintiff's land, but only for a portion of the year, after the grass on that land had been cut and sold. Such grazing is ordinary village nistar and no grazing dues should be charged for it.