ORDER N.M. Golvalker, J This is a revision petition by defendants Nos. 1 and 3 against the decree passed in favour of non-applicant No. 1. Non-applicant No. 1 was entrusted to collect market dues of the village Mallar within the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat. The period of lease in his favour was for the period from 1st April 1956 to 31st March 1957 for a consideration of Rs. 1,275. It was his case that this market was kept closed on the orders of applicant No. 2 from 1-6-1956 to 14-8-1956 as a result of which he suffered damages of Rs. 40 per day. Applicant No. 1 as defendant No. 1 disclaimed any liability on the ground that the Gram Panchayat non-applicant No. 2 (defendant No. 2) was a body absolutely independent and, therefore, there would be no vicarious liability on it. The lower Court found that the Gram Panchayat being an agent of Janapada Sabha, the Sabha was liable for the losses suffered by the plaintiff Bhukhanlal. On that basis his claim in full was decreed as stoppage of the market was found to be wrongful. In this revision petition two points were urged; that Janapada Sabha (applicant No. 1) could not be held vicariously liable and applicant No. 2 representing the Gram Panchayat could lawfully stop holding of the market in exercise of the powers conferred under section 30(vii) of the C.P. and Berar Panchayats Act of 1946. As regards the first contention about the vicarious liability the provisions of section 52(1) of the C.P. and Berar Local Government Act of 1948 makes the position very clear. If we peruse sections 49 and 50 of the said Act it will be abundantly clear that section 49 lays down the compulsory duties of the Janapada Sabha within their jurisdiction and section 50 optional duties. The establishment and management of markets is one of the compulsory duties. As against that if we peruse sections 30 and 31 of the C.P. and Berar Panchayats Act of 1946 it will be seen that section 30 enumerates the compulsory duties of Gram Panchayats and section 31 enumerates their optional duties. Establishment and management of market is neither a compulsory duty nor an optional duty of a Gram Panchayat. As against that if we peruse sections 30 and 31 of the C.P. and Berar Panchayats Act of 1946 it will be seen that section 30 enumerates the compulsory duties of Gram Panchayats and section 31 enumerates their optional duties. Establishment and management of market is neither a compulsory duty nor an optional duty of a Gram Panchayat. It may possibly be urged that there is a duty on the Gram Panchayat under section (xiv) i.e. the control and management of cattle-pounds and bazars. Even then it is one of the optional duties, which may be undertaken by a decision of the majority of the members of the Panchayat. Now if we turn to section 52(1) of the C.P. and Berar Local Government Act it will be crystal clear that Janapada Sabha may by contract entrust the management of any public market to a Gram Panchayat within whose jurisdiction such a market is situate. It can, therefore, be presumed that the management of the market at Mallar by the Gram Panchayat must have been undertaken as a result of entrustment of the same by the Janapada Sabha which must be presumed to be sharing with the Panchayat the income therefrom. Further sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 52 lay down that the Gram Panchayat while managing the market shall be the agent of the Sabha and shall be exercising all powers of the Sabha. Therefore in this position the Sabha can be rightly held answerable for the actions of its agent and if any action taken by the agent causes loss to a third person Sabha necessarily will have to bear that loss. As regards the contention that stopping of the market was in the bona fide exercise of the powers provided under section 30, clause (vii) of the C.P. and Berar Panchayats Act, 1946, I feel no hesitation that the action was not at all bona fide but taken in an irresponsible and negligent manner. On the complaint of the plaintiff to the Sabha (Ex. D-1) a report from the local Vaidya was called for and the report submitted by the Vaidya (Ex. D-2) as also the action taken thereon by the Janapada Sabha (Ex D-3) conclusively established that there was no each apprehension of any cholera epidemic either at Mallar or at places round about entitling taking of measures to prevent its outbreak of spreading. D-2) as also the action taken thereon by the Janapada Sabha (Ex D-3) conclusively established that there was no each apprehension of any cholera epidemic either at Mallar or at places round about entitling taking of measures to prevent its outbreak of spreading. Had it been so there would not have been immediately an order by the Sabha to start the market. The contention, therefore, raised by the applicant No. 1 in this petition has no force and the same is rejected. However the applicant Sabha stands on a stronger footing so far the assessment of damages is concerned. I am aware that this is a revision petition and the finding of the lower Court is not expected to be disturbed. But if the lower Court has given that finding on evidence which was not legal then interference in the interest of justice would be called for. The lower Court accepts the figure of the plaintiff without any rational or legal basis. He accepts that figure on the basis that as one year's fee paid by the plaintiff was Rs. 1,275 the weekly fee would be Rs. 24-52 and therefore, he inferred that the income must have been more than that. Hence it accepted the figure of Rs. 40 stated by the plaintiff. True it is that one can reasonably infer that the income must have been more than the weekly fee but that would not permit one to estimate how much more it will be. For that it was very necessary for the plaintiff to have produced better evidence. His word of mouth alone would be of no legal value. The plaintiff must necessarily be having in his possession accounts or receipt-books to show what was his income per market during the period 1-4-1956 to 1-6-1956 on which date the market was stopped. The income between this period would have given some rational and, legal basis for the Court to estimate the losses suffered by the plaintiff consequent to the stoppage of the market. In the absence, therefore, of such evidence the lower Court was not entitled in law to accept the oral estimate of the plaintiff. In fact from the non-production of the accounts, although the plaintiff denies to be in possession thereof, an adverse inference against the plaintiff should have been drawn. In the absence, therefore, of such evidence the lower Court was not entitled in law to accept the oral estimate of the plaintiff. In fact from the non-production of the accounts, although the plaintiff denies to be in possession thereof, an adverse inference against the plaintiff should have been drawn. There was, thus, no legal evidence before the Court on the basis of which it could decree the claim in full. The evidence, therefore, on record permits award of a decree for the losses calculated reasonably on the basis of the weekly fee that the plaintiff was paying to the Gram Panchayat. To that extent at least one can with justification hold to a certainty that the plaintiff must have suffered losses. The result, therefore, is that the decree of the lower Court is modified by substituting a decree for Rs. 245.20 nP in substitution of the decree for Rs. 400 as passed. Except for this modification and substitution in the lower Court's decree, this revision petition is dismissed. Under the circumstances, I make no order for costs in this Court. As for the costs in the lower Court the plaintiff is awarded proportionate costs against the defendants. Petition dismissed