On the day prior to the occurrence, PWs 17 and 19 tried to intimidate Jamuna to companye to terms with them and to peacefully deliver possession of the property to them.
The same was sold by public auction on January 2, 1961 and purchased by PW 17 Ashwani Kumar Dutt for a sum of Rs.
He had raised crops in the field in question.
Khushi Ram, the managing officer.
If there was any delivery as alleged by the prosecution, the same was without the authority of law and as such was of numbereffect.
Though the appellants in their statement under s. 342 Cr.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 26, 1965 of the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at Delhi in Criminal Revision No.
Bhawani Lal, Kartar Singh Suri and E. C. Agrawala for C. Agrawala, for the appellants.
But stray ,or even intermittent acts of trespass do number give such a right against the true owner.
Provisional delivery of that property was given to the vendee on October 10, 1961.
Its provisional delivery was given on October 12, 1961.
The possession which a trespasser is entitled to defend against the rightful owner must be a settled possession extending over a sufficiently long period and acquiesced in by the true owner.
P.C. denied having been present at the scene of occurrence or having caused injuries to any one, the plea taken on their behalf at all stages was one of private defence.
The sale certificate was issued on February 8, 1962.
On July 1, 1962 when PW 17 and his father PW 19, R. P. Dutt went to the field with PW 16, Gopal Das, PW 15 Nand Lal and one B. N. Acharya with a trac tor to level the land, the appellants came armed with spears and lathis attacked the companyplainants party and caused injuries to PWs 17 and 19 and the tractor driver, B. N. Acharya.
His tenancy was never terminated.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
266 D of 1964.
Their case is that their relation Jamuna DW 3 was the tenant in the land for over thirty years.
The prosecution case is as follows Field No.
The actual delivery was given on June 22, 1962 as per the warrant issued by PW 5.
124 of 1965.
A casual act of possession would number have the effect of interrupting the possession of the rightful owner.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. Two questions that arise for decision in this appeal by special leave are 1 whether the appellants have established satisfactorily the right of private defence pleaded by them and 2 if they had that right, have they exceeded the same ?
The said delivery was effected by PW It Sham Das Kanungo.
That property was acquired by the Central Government under the Displaced Persons Act, 1954.
N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
7,600.
There was numberdelivery on June 22, 1962.
For the sake of companyvenience we shall refer to that property hereinafter as evacuee property.
1129/477 measuring five bighas and thirteen biswas situated in Kilokri was an evacuee property and as such was under the management of the managing officer.
Hence, Jamuna companytinued to be in possession of the property even on July 1, 1962.
At that time PW 19 was armed with an unlicensed pistol.
With a view to forcibly assert their right to the property, the companyplainant party came to the field in a body on July 1, 1962 with a tractor.
But he put off the question of companypromise by pleading that he was going out of station and the question of companypromise companyld be companysidered after his return.
The sale certificate was issued on 8 2 62 exh.
