Short Note : 1. Appellants were convicted under sections 326, 324, and 323 read with sections 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code Held: The evidence of Ajmal (P.W. 5) goes to show that Gendalal and his party armed with sticks were on the field with a view to cultivate. At this stage appellant Hazarilal and the other accused came upon the scene. Hazarilal requested Gendalal to desist from ploughing the land. Gendalal did not accept this. It was after this that the fight between the two groups took place. It is clear from the prosecution evidence itself that Gendalal and the members of his party were the aggressors. They tried to take forcible possession of the land which was clearly in possession of the appellant Hazarilal. Appellant Hazarilal and the other appellants who are members of his party were clearly entitled to maintain possession and to exercise the right of private defence for that purpose It appears from the presence of injuries on the appellants that GendaIal and the members of his party were determined to take possession. They even assaulted Hazarilal and the other appellants. In the circumstances the right of private defence of property and person became available to the appellants. Appeal allowed.