ARJUNO PANDI Vs. JURA DALAI AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed with leave of court against the acquittal of the Respondents in appeal by Sri D.N. Das, Sessions Judge of Ganjam. They were convicted by the trying Magistrate under Sections 447 and 426 I.P.C.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that the complainant P. W. 5 purchased the survey No. 729 from one Bira Dalai in 1946 under a registered sale -deed and raised a betel garden there and was in enjoyment and possession of it. On 12 -12 -1953 the complainant alleged that the two accused who are father and son trespassed and uprooted the betel creepers and the Agasti plants which supported the said creepers causing a damage of about Rs. 150/ - to the complainant. When questioned it is stated that the Respondents defied him and that later on they left it when the neighbouring tenants prevented their high -handed action,

(3.) IN the appeal against the conviction and sentence Sri D.N. Das, the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam set aside the conviction and sentence on a different ground he came to the conclusion that S. No. 729 which according to the prosecution belonged to the complaint appeared in the diglott as belonging to two persons and therefore, the complainant could not be said to have made out his title. He also held that the accused entered upon the land under a bonafide claim of title. Though the learned Sessions Judge referred to the diglott it is not on the record and is not marked as an exhibit. The diglott referred to is of the year 1950. I am not sure if a diglott is printed in Ganjan District in 1950. But there is the evidence on the side of the complainant that he purchased the land in 1946 by a registered sale -deed. He was paying rent since that time and a patta was also issued in his name. In the face of this evidence I cannot understand how the learned Session Judge came to the conclusion that the land was not in the possession of the complainant. The other point on which the learned Sessions Judge set aside the conviction is also not satisfactory. The case that they were in possession in their own right, the property being their ancestral property cannot be said to have been made out in view of all the documentary evidence produced by the complainant being in his favour. The learned Sessions Judge in my opinion was also in error in saying that the village Karan was interested in the complainant as he attested the sale -deed of 1946 and also spoke to the possession of land by the complainant. Karanam of a village is best fitted to speak to possession of land.