DURA RANBIDA AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Labar Ganda, an ex -Choukidar, had five daughters Nura, Draupadi, Ura, Dura (accused No. 1) and Surunani. Urkala (p.w. 1), the informant, is the natural born son of Nura. He had been adopted by Labar Ganda in 1936. Dhanapati (accused No. 3) is the son of Draupadi. Radhakanta (accused No. 2) is the son of Dura. Prosecution case is that plot Nos. 1203 and 1274 in Holding No. 85 locally known as Amburaimal were in the possession of p.w. 1 who became the Choukidar of the village after the death of Labar Ganda. The Petitioners with one Jogendra and Draupadi went upon the disputed lands in the morning of 14 -1 -1971 and forcibly ploughed them. The defence of the accused persons was that 80 decimals of land had been given to Dura by her father Labar Ganda and the disputed lands are part of 80 decimals and she was all through in possession and cultivated the lands on the date of occurrence.

(2.) THE learned Sessions Judge in a careful judgment has discussed the entire evidence. P.ws. 2 and 3 are contiguous witnesses. They support the case of p.w. 1 that he was throughout in possession. They also support the prosecution version that for the first time Dura with other accused persons forcibly trespassed upon the disputed lands and did not heed to the protests made by p.w. 1 and by others on his behalf. Ext. 10 dated 15 -11 -1970 is a notice for water rate in favour of p.w. 1 and it includes the disputed plots 1203 and 1274. After examining all the relevant evidence -oral and documentary the learned Sessions Judge recorded a den finding that p.w. 1 was all through in possession. The positive case of the defence was that Dura has been in possession of the disputed lands after her father 's death. Positive evidence could be available on behalf of the defence to prove the possession of Dura. Not a single defence witness was examined; nor the prosecution case has been destroyed by any effective cross -examinations. The concurrent finding that p.w. 1 was all through in possession is unassailable.

(3.) MR . Sen places reliance on Smt. Mathri and Ors. v. The State of Punjab : A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 986, end contends that the act of the Petitioners was not with the intent to annoy and as such, the conviction under Section 447 is untenable. It is difficult to appreciate why this decision was cited.