JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, C.J. - Petitioner No. 1 is the father-in-law of Petitioner 2. They have been convicted u/s 379, Indian Penal Code, and were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250-00 each, in default to undergo R. I. for three months each by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udala. In appeal the sentence was reduced to Rs. 50-00 each in default to undergo R.I. for 15 days by the learned Sessions Judge. 2. The disputed land originally belonged to the wife of Petitioner-1. On her death it devolved on two of her minor daughters. On 5th of June, 1961, Petitioner 1 as guardian of the minor daughters sold the disputed land to the complainant (opposite party) and his brother for Rs. 300-00 by an unregistered sale-deed, Ext. 1. Petitioner No. 1 is a member of the scheduled tribe. The opposite party and his brother belong to non-scheduled Tribe. As permission is necessary for transfer of land by a member of the Scheduled tribe in favour of one belonging to nonscheduled tribe, Petitioner-1 filed an application, Ext. 2, for permission of the S.D.O. on the date of sale. He, however, did not pursue the prayer for permission. The case of the opposite party was that he was all through in possession, had grown paddy on the disputed land, and on 6-12-1970 the Petitioners along with others cut and carried away the crop. 3. The defence of the Petitioners was that under the unregistered sale-deed only Rs. 150-00 had been paid out of Rs. 300-00. Though Petitioner 1 executed the unregistered sale deed and made an application for permission, the land continued to be in possession of Petitioner 1. He grew the crop and reaped' the paddy, and committed no offence. 4. Both the Courts below placed reliance on the unregistered sale-deed, ext. 1, the application for permission, ext. 2, and the oral evidence of p.ws. 2 to 6 as to possession by the complainant from the date of sale till the date the Petitioners cut and removed the paddy and also on their deposition that in respect of the crop of the year 1970, the opposite party grew the paddy. On this finding, they rejected the bona fide claim of right advanced by the Petitioners. Mr. Section Mohanty made a faint attempt to assail this concurrent finding. On this finding, they rejected the bona fide claim of right advanced by the Petitioners. Mr. Section Mohanty made a faint attempt to assail this concurrent finding. After going through the evidence placed by him, I am satisfied that the finding is unassaible. 5. Mr. S. Mohanty, for the Petitioners, then urged that without permission from a competent authority sale by a member of the Scheduled tribe in favour of a person belonging to nonscheduled tribe is illegal and void abilities, and even if the Petitioner removed the crop which the opposite party grew, they are protected by a bona fide claim of right. He placed reliance on Suvvari Sanyasi Apparao and Another Vs. Boddepalli Lakshminarayana and Another. This contention requires a careful examination. 6. In Binayak Swain v. R.O. Panigrahi 31 (1965) C.L.T. 601, I had occasion to examine the identical question. Reference in that case was made to Abdul and Another Vs. Emperor and Chandi Kumar Das Karmarkar and Another Vs. Abanidhar Roy. After reviewing the entire position, the following observation was made: If the accused removed the property honestly believing to be his, he should not be convicted of theft, even though his claim might be ill founded in law and in fact. The claim put forward by the accused must not be a mere colourable pretence. In each case the Court shall have to come to a finding as to whether the claim advanced by the accused is an honest one or a mere pretence. It may however be laid down as a general proposition that in cases where the alleged theft consisted in the removal of crop grown on the land? the most vital question to be investigated is as to which of the parties had grown the crop. A decision on this point would enable the Court to come to a definite conclusion in majority of cases as to whether the claim of the accused was bona fide or a mere pretence. The aforesaid dictum cannot, however, be treated as laying down a universal rule. There are exceptions which cannot also be enumerated in an exhaustive manner. The same view was taken by Ahmad C.J. in Binayak Swain v. State of Orissa 31 (1965) C.L.T. 679, by Das; J, in Sita Bewa v. Bimbadhar Raut 31 (1965) C.L.T. 749, by Patra, J i Anadi Sahu and Others Vs. There are exceptions which cannot also be enumerated in an exhaustive manner. The same view was taken by Ahmad C.J. in Binayak Swain v. State of Orissa 31 (1965) C.L.T. 679, by Das; J, in Sita Bewa v. Bimbadhar Raut 31 (1965) C.L.T. 749, by Patra, J i Anadi Sahu and Others Vs. Narendra Naik and Uma Charan Chand Vs. Charan Das and B.K. Ray, J. in Tularam Patel v. Siba Sankar Kalo and Ors. ILR 1970 Cutt 220. The legal position is, therefore, not in doubt. 7. Transfer by a member of Scheduled tribe in favour of a member of a non-scheduled tribe without permission of the competent authority is illegal and void. Despite it, however, if possession is delivered under an unregistered sale-deed, the same is admissible for collateral purposes of proving possession u/s 49 of the Registration Act. Moreover, theft is an offence against possession. On the accepted finding that the complainant was in possession of the disputed land from 1961 till the date of occurrence for a period of about nine years, and that he grew the crop which the Petitioners forcibly cut and removed, there cannot be any question of bona fide claim of right. The claim here is a mere pretence. It was open to Petitioner No. 1 to exhaust all legal remedies available to him and not to take the law into his own hands by forcibly removing the crop which the opposite party had grown. The Petitioners caused wrongful loss to the opposite party and wrongful gain to themselves, and thus, their intention was dishonest. 8. The conviction is well-founded and the sentence is not heavy. The learned Sessions Judge should not have reduced the fine imposed by the learned Magistrate. If the fines are paid, the entire amount should be paid as compensation to the opposite party.