FATEH SINGH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule was issued on the ground that the Sessions Judge having found that peaceful possession of the lands had been given to the petitioners malik by the Civil Court and that the malik s men commenced ploughing the field first, it should have been held that the petitioners were in the lawful exercise of their rights over their property and, consequently, had the right of private defence.

(2.) The petitioners have been convicted of the offences of rioting and constructively of grievous hurt under Sections 147 and 325 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months each under each of the counts. They have farther been bound down to keep the peace, tinder Section 106 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for a period of two years after release.

(3.) The facts that gave rise to this case may be shortly considered. Rai Bahadur Harihar Prosad Singh of Dumraon is the malik of the village of Kurmichak, where this occurrence is said to have taken place. He purchased this village three years ago, and with it a number of decrees for rent that were outstanding against the tenants. One of these decrees was against Ram Ratan Mahton, who is one of the complainants in this case. In execution of this decree, Ram Ratan s holding was sold by the Court and purchased by Rai Bahadur Harihar Prosad Singh on the 27th February 1911. The judgment-debtor, on 17th March, applied for a chalan to deposit the money, but no money was deposited. On the 21st, March 1911 a petition of satisfaction was filed on behalf of the decree-holder with a prayer that the sale might be set aside, but it could not be set aside inasmuch as the money was said to have been paid on the expiry of 30 days after the sale. The sale was, therefore, confirmed, and the application for setting it aside was dismissed. A year later, that is, on the 15th April 1912, the decree-holder applied for, and obtained, a delivery of possession in respect of the holding that he had purchased, it being his case that the petition of satisfaction had been filed on certain misrepresentations by the tenant, who in fact had not paid the money that was due. On the 19th April the judgment-debtor filed an objection against the delivery that had already been made, and that objection at the time of this occurrence, as also at the time that this matter was heard in appeal by the Judge, was yet pending decision.