IN RE: RAMANUJA NAIDU AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioners were accused 1 to 3 and 4 and 8 in C.C. No. 1303 of 1965, the file of the Sub -Magistrate, Cuddalore. Accused 1 to 3 were convicted under Sections 143, 447 read with 114 and 379 read with 114, Indian Penal Code, and they were sentenced each to pay a fine of Rs. 40. On each count, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks on each count -Accused 4 and 8 were convicted under Sections 143, 447 and 379, Indian Penal Code, and each was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 under each count, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks on each count, by the Sub -Magistrate, Cuddalore. On appeal, the convictions and sentences were confirmed by the District Magistrate, South Arcot.

(2.) THE short point that arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether the petitioners, in the circumstances of this case, would be entitled to a bona fide claim of right to the properties in question. To appreciate this point, it is necessary to note briefly the facts of the case.

(3.) THE prosecution examined several witnesses to prove that the accused cut and removed the paddy crops raised by P.W. 1. The finding of the lower Courts is that even after the rival sale deeds came into existence, P.W. 1 continued to be in possession of the properties and he raised the crops. The learned Counsel for the petitioners was unable to challenge the finding of the Courts below that it was P.W. 1 who was in possession of the properties and raised the crops in question. The Courts below further found that the accused cut and removed the crops raised by P.W. 1. It was contended on behalf of the revision petitioners in the lower Court that even assuming P.W. 1 was in possession of the properties and raised crops, the removal of the crops from the properties by the revision petitioners could not be said to be a dishonest removal bringing within the mischief of Section 379, Indian Penal Code, and that they are entitled to claim their right to enter upon the land as they had purchased it by sale deeds Exhibits D -1 and D -2 and thus, it is said, that their claim is bond fide. The same contention is reiterated before me by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners. I am unable to agree with this contention. It has been found by the lower Courts as already pointed out, that P.W. 1 as a lessee continued to be in possession of the properties and he raised the crops which was subsequently harvested and removed by the revision petitioners. The bona fide claim of right can be asserted between two rival claimants. It is probable that such a claim by the revision petitioner's might be justified as against Kannappan who also claimed the property by virtue of a sale deed. But it is not the case that there was dispute between these two rival claimants. The trespass alleged was against the possession of P.W. 1. If there were no crops on the land and the crops were not raised by P.W. 1 and if the land was lying vacant and in those circumstances, one of the rival parties had entered on the property to take possession by virtue of the sale deeds in their favour, there will be a justification for the party who enters upon the land to assert a bona fide claim. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following decisions.