JUDGMENT 1. This is a rule calling on the District Magistrate of Faridpur to show cause why the conviction and sentence passed on the Petitioners under sec. 447, I. P. Code, should not be set aside on the ground that the prosecution under that section could not be maintained against the owner of the property on which the complainant claimed a right of easement. It appears that the dispute between the parties was really as regards either the ownerships of the land, or the right of the complainant to use the land or a part of it as a pathway. Evidence was gone into on both sides as regards the ownership of the land, and the trying Magistrate recorded in his judgment that "every attempt has been made by the parties to establish their respective title and right to the disputed place both by oral and documentary evidence. But as that is a point which should be decided by Civil Court I do not think it very necessary to dwell much upon this point." 2. The question as to title was also raised in the lower Appellate Court. That Court apparently decided the matter on a reference to a map which proved nothing about title. 3. We take it that there was a dispute as to the title to the land, and all that is proved in the case is that the complainant was in possession of the pathway for six months or more. The possession of the pathway means simply the use of the pathway as a pathway which might be used under a right of way claimed as an easement. The question of title to the land having been left undetermined the Petitioners before us could not be convicted under see. 447, I. P. C. merely on the findlng that the complainant had used the pathway for six months or more. 4. We therefore Bet aside the conviction under sec 447, I. P. Code, and the sentence there under and direct that the fine if paid be refunded to the Petitioners. The conviction and sentences passed on the Petitioners under sec. 323, I. P. Code, must stand.