RAMSETTY BUTCHAIAH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the five accused against their conviction by the Prl. Sessions Judge, Hyderabad under the judgment dated 10th November, 1964.

(2.) THE necessary facts in order to appreciate the contentions raised before us by the learned Advocate appearing for the accused may briefly be stated. Sri M. Lakshminarayana, an advocate of several years practice, owns 115 acres and 38 guntas of lands in Bogaram village known as Mattambavi and Nimmabavi lands. He is alleging that Ramisetti Mallayya and the members of his family have been cultivating these lands on lease. A-1 and A-2 are the sons of Ramisetti Mallayya while accused 3 is his brother, A-4 is the son of A-3 and A-5 is the son-in-law of Ramisetti Mallayya. Ramisetti Mallayya and the members of his family have been disputing the ownership of P. W. 3 and setting up their own title. Because of this dispute, P. W. 3 instituted several proceedings. He filed an application before the Revenue divisional Officer, Hyderabad district for fixation of fair rent. He filed another application before the Tahsildar Medachal for recovery of some arrears of rent. He filed a suit before the Munsif Magistrate, Hyderabad East for damages alleging inter alia that the accused had cut some of the tamarind trees belonging to P. W. 3. The suit for damages had been decreed and at the time the trial started the appeal against the judgment was still pending.

(3.) P. W. 3 is about 70 years old and has been ailing since February, 1961. He therefore entrusted the management of his land at Bogaram to his wife's brother's son P. Viswanatham who was also an advocate. Viswanatham was also working as junior to P. W. 3 in the early days of his practice. In the litigation which was going on between P. W. 3 and the members of the accused's family, Viswanatham appeared on behalf of P. W. 3.