K. RAMACHANDRAN AND OTHERS Vs. RAJAMANICKAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE wife of Thiru Rajamanickam (P.W. 2), a retired Government Servant, had purchased the house, Door No. 25/2930 situated in Subbiah Mudali Street, Coimbatore, for Rs. 36,000/ - on 16th September 1970, as per the sale deed Ex. P. 4, from the owner Kuppu -swami Gounder, the father(sic) of Petitioners 1 and 2. This purchase was pursuant to a prior sale agreement Ex. P. 3 which is dated 22nd July 1970. P.W. 1 was a tenant in occupation of a portion of this building as per the rent deed Ex.P.1. He surrendered possession to P.W. 2, after Receiving Rs. 1,500/ - from him, as per the endorsement, Ex. P. 2 dated 16th September 1970. Thus, P.W. 2 was in possession of this portion and also the other portions of this house from 16th September, 1970. The second Petitioner is the brother of the first Petitioner, and Petitioners 3 and 4 are the sons of the first Petitioner. P.W. 2 "filed a complaint in Court on 5th February 1971, averring therein that on 20th December 1970 at 6 P.M., these Petitioners trespassed into the house after breaking open the lock and caused damage to the articles kept by him there. The complaint Ex. P. 5 was given at the B -1 Police Station at Coimbatore on the same day. Since the Police did not take any action, he filed the complaint referred to above in Court. The Petitioners contended that the property in question belonged to them and that the same was in their exclusive possession and enjoyment. The Executive III Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, convicted them under Sections 448 and 426 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them each to pay a fine of Rs. 25/ -. Under S. 522(1), Cr.P.C., he directed the Petitioners to restore possession of the house to P.W. 2. The Petitioners preferred an appeal to the District Magistrate (J.), Coimbatore, and he, by his judgment in C.A. 153 of 1971, confirmed both the conviction and sentence. He modified the order under Section 522(1), Cr.P.C., by restricting it to the portion occupied by P.W. 1. This was on the ground that P.W. 2 had taken possession of only that portion of the house. The correctness of this decision is now canvassed by the Petitioners in this revision.

(2.) EX . P. 4 dated 16th September 1970 is the sale deed executed by Kuppuswami Gounder, the father of Petitioners 1 and 2, to the wife of P.W. 2. Ex. P. 3 is the prior sale agreement. The Petitioners have attested the document. P.W. 1 was in possession of a portion of this building, viz., 15' x 100' in the front, as a tenant, as per the document, Ex. P. 1 which is dated 18th March 1970. Petitioners 1 and 2 and their father are the executants of this deed. P.W. 1 has sworn that he surrendered possession of this property to P.W. 2. Ex. P. 2 dated 16th September 1970 is the endorsement in Ex. P. 1 to that effect. The learned District Magistrate has correctly held that P.W. 2 was in possession of the portion demised under Ex. P. 1 on the relevant date. He has also correctly held that the Petitioners have trespassed into this portion as stated by the complainant. The convictions of the Petitioners under Sections 428 and 426 of the Indian Penal Code are correct and they are confirmed. The sentence is not excessive. It is also confirmed.

(3.) THEN , the next question is as to whether the ingredients necessary for bringing the matter within the ambit of S. 522, Cr.P.C., are present in the instant case. The complainant in the complaint has averred that the Petitioners broke open the lock; damaged the padlock, trespassed into the house and damaged the household articles. He has further averred that he rushed to the spot and found the Petitioners indulging in these acts. He questioned as to why they were doing like that. They abused him and told him that he could not live at the house at that place peacefully. . Ex. P. 5 is the report given by P. W. 2's wife at the police Station. Therein she has averred that she was being threatened by these Petitioners. The learned District Magistrate has held that the Petitioners had taken possession of the front portion by using criminal force.