BABOO LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is a house in mohalla Newaz-ganj, police station Saadatganj, in the city of Lucknow. The house in longed to one Brij Lal, who died leaving six sons. One of his sons is Babu Lal, who has filed this revision. Mahesh Prasad, who filed the complaint, which has given rise to this revision, is the grandson of Brij Lal Kailash Nath and Nand Kishore, who were named among the accused persons in the complaint filed by Mahesh Prasad, are also the grandsons of Brij Lal. Brij Lal's sons and grandsons now own and occupy the house, which has not yet been partitioned. In the house there is a room occupied by Babu Lal applicant and adjacent to that room on the other side is the dalan occupied by Mahesh Prasad. complainant. There is a common wall between Babu Barn's room and Mahesh Prasad's dalan. On the upper storey over the common wall, there is a parda wall. The partial demolition of the parda wall has led to the present dispute.

(2.) ON 17-6-1950, at 10. 30 a. m. , Mahesh Prasad lodged a report at police station Saadatganj against Babu Lal, applicant, Kailash Nath and Nand Kishore. In this report Mahesh Prasad had alleged that there was an old enmity between him and the accused persons on account of the disputed about property and that on 17-6-1950, at about 8 a. m. while he was away from his house the accused Babu Lal had gone on the root of his house and with the help of Kailaghnath and Nand Kishore had demolished the parda' wall in order to cause loss and damage to him.

(3.) A couple of days later, on 19-6-1950, Mahesh Prasad filed a complaint against Babu Lal, applicant, Kailash Nath and Nand Kishoro in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate n of Lucknow. In this complaint it was alleged that the accused persons bore a grudge against the complainant "on account of assumed disputes regarding property," and that on 17-6-1950, at about 8 a. m while the complainant had gone to Chaupattia, Babu Lala, applicant, with the help of Kailash nath and Nand Kishore had gone to the roof of the house and demolished the parda wall, which was his exclusive property, over which he was in exclusive possession and that the accused persons had done so with intent to cause wrongful loss to the complainant.