Short Note : 1. The trial Court found that on 2-11-1973 in the morning the incident had occurred in which the appellant Gokuldas had given spear blows to Khiransingh and Shantibai. The trial Court found that the appellant was in possession of Khasra No.203 known as Pipalwala field situated in Mankedi village. The actual possession was with the appellant and this fact was fully established as the complainant made a report on 1-11-1973 complaining that the appellant had taken illegal possession of the field. Revenue proceedings were going on in respect of the field and on 31-10-1973, the matter was dismissed because of the absence of the appellant. The trial Court further found that the appellant had shown the field 15 days before the incident. The appellant, anticipating trouble, had gone armed with a Ballam. It is also undisputed that Ishwardas, one of the acquitted accused persons, had an incised injury on his hand. The trial Court was of the opinion that the circumstances gave rise to a right of private defence of property to the appellant but that Gokuldas had exceeded that right and there was no occasion to use the spear on vital parts of Shantibai and Khiransingh. Held: The finding that the appellant was in possession of the field and that the complainant party had come to take forcible possession has not been rightly challenged before me and the finding in that regard appears to be fully correct. It is not necessary also to refer to the previous dispute regarding the field between the parties. The sequence of events would show that after the complainant had obtained order from the revenue Court he had first made report, Ex. P-11-A that the appellants were interfering with their possession and thereafter on 2-11-1973, they took law in their hands and wanted to take possession from the appellant. The injury on the person of Ishwardas has not been explained and the complainant's witnesses are not telling the entire truth. 2. That there was a right of private defence of property is fully made out by the evidence on record. It is true that the right could not be exercised vindictively and it does not appear, in the circumstance of the case that the appellant chose the action as a pretext to wreck vengence on the complainant party. 2. That there was a right of private defence of property is fully made out by the evidence on record. It is true that the right could not be exercised vindictively and it does not appear, in the circumstance of the case that the appellant chose the action as a pretext to wreck vengence on the complainant party. Since the complainant had gone to take possession of the field, it is immaterial whether the fight had been actually opened by the appellant or it was at the instance of the complainant party. In exercising this right, it has also to be borne in mind that the defenders could not be expected to exercise the right with such care and caution selecting such parts of the body as were not vital and with such weapon as was not likely to cause more harm than necessary. We have to see all the circumstances of the case. Gokul had a spear in his hand. He had given only one blow to each of the trespassers and though the use of a spear looked somewhat dangerous this could not be judged from the standard of a detached bystander but from the person whose stakes were involved. The right is not an illusory one. It does not appear from the evidence that the appellant persisted in the use of the spear more than what was necessary. I do not think that the circumstances are such that it would be justified in holding that the appellant exceeded the right of private defence. Appeal allowed.