JUDGMENT

1. In this case the dispute was with reference to the right to collect tolas, or small perquisites, from Dewangunge hut. The first party on behalf of the local Mahomedans was claiming the right to collect the tolas only on one day every year, for performing a certain religious ceremony. The second parties who were Hindus were objecting to this, saying that the Mahomedans had no such right to collect tolas from the hat as alleged by the first party.

2. Now, the first ground upon which this Rule was issued was that the case was not one falling within Section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the reason why it is alleged that the case did not come within that Section was that the dispute was not one concerning the right of use of any land.

3. Now, in our opinion, it was a dispute concerning the right of use of land. As far as I can understand, the facts of this case show that the hat was held every week in the particular village. It was held always on the same vacant piece of ground somewhat about the middle of the village, and when the hat was held, people who wanted to sell their goods came and took up their position upon different places on this vacant piece of ground i