JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated, July 14, 1976, of the Sessions Judge, Merta City, convicting the appellants, Ramniwas, Ramchand, and Gang Deo, under sections 324, 323 and 325 I.P.C. respectively, and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for one year, six months and two years, respectively. 2. The case of the prosecution which resulted in the conviction and sentence of the appellants as aforementioned is that on June 17, 1974, they along with their other companions, six in number, attacked a number of other villagers and caused hurt to as many as six of them. 7116 trial court acquitted the six co-accused on the ground that there was no satisfactory evidence on the record to prove their participation in the commission of crimes alleged against them. It, however, held that the prosecution had proved its case to the effect that Ramniwas had caused hurt to Hari Singh PW, that Ramchand had caused hurt to PWs. Kana Ram, Bhanwaru and Shanker, and that Gang Deo had caused grievous hurt to Shanker and simple hurt to Bhanwaru and Kana Ram. It was on the basis of these findings that the aforementioned order of conviction and sentence was passed against the appellants. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and the Public Prosecutor for the State, I find that the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants cannot possibly be sustained. It is admitted by the prosecution that Chola Ram, I who was one of the accused - persons involved in the present case and who has since been acquitted, and Chola Ram's son, Sukhdeo, had taken wrongful possession of the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1 and 3 situate in village Nimbola in the year 1971. The document, Ex.D. 11, placed on record on behalf of the appellants proves this act. This document, however, further shows that their possession was subsequently regularised by the competent revenue authorities. Such regularisation is further evident from the fact that the authorities concerned realised land revenue of this land (tom Chola Ram Payment of land revenue by Chola Ram is evidenced by the document, Ex.D/12. 4. This document, however, further shows that their possession was subsequently regularised by the competent revenue authorities. Such regularisation is further evident from the fact that the authorities concerned realised land revenue of this land (tom Chola Ram Payment of land revenue by Chola Ram is evidenced by the document, Ex.D/12. 4. It can, therefore be safely concluded that as on June 17, 1974, i. e. the late of occurrence, Chola Ram and the present appellants' who are some of the members of Chola Ram's family, were in lawful possession of the land comprised in Khasra No. 1 and 3 aforementioned. The case of the prosecution however is that man application by the villagers to the Sub Divisional Officer, Merta, the latter had declared this land to be pasture land and that it was in compliance of that order that the Tehsildar had gone to the village Nimbola to deliver possession of the said land to the Paochayat of that village. The prosecution case further is that white the villagers, were engaged in Pathargarhi on the land in dispute on the directions of the Tehsildar the present appellants and their companions attacked the villagers and caused hurt to some of them. 5. The learned trial Judge has convicted the present appellants taking the view that they had no right of private defence of property in respect of the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1 and 3 by reason of the fact that the Tehsildar had gone j to the spot to deliver the possession of this land to the villagers in compliance with the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, Merta. The learned trial Judge took note of the fact that no such order in compliance of which the Tehsildar might have gone on the spot has been proved on record, He still held that the Tehsildar was present on the spot as a public servant acting in good faith in the discharge of his duties and that therefore, appellants cannot invoke the right of private defence of property for causing hurt to the villagers who were engaged in Pathargarhi under the directions of the Tehsildar. 6. I have very carefully considered the statement of J.K. Johari, the Tehsildar concerned, who was examined as PW. 8 and find that he does not support the prosecution case to the effect that the villagers were engaged in Pathargarhi under his directions. 6. I have very carefully considered the statement of J.K. Johari, the Tehsildar concerned, who was examined as PW. 8 and find that he does not support the prosecution case to the effect that the villagers were engaged in Pathargarhi under his directions. On the other hand, he deposed that immediately after there was some altercation between Chola Ram on one side and the villagers on the other and after he had seen some women-folk coming out of their homes with some weapons in their hands, be left the spot and went away. There is nothing in his statement which may be reasonably construed as indicating that he had asked any of the villagers to earmark the land in dispute by erecting a stone boundary around it and that the villagers concerned were engaged in doing the work of under his directions. It appears that J.K. Johari, thought that his Job in the village that day was done by his merely reading out some order which, he says, he had carried with him. He left the village after reading out the order and after he had seen for himself that any further attempt by him to deliver actual physical possession of the land in dispute to the villagers by ousting Chola Ram and his family was likely to result in breach of peace and a law and order problem in the village. It is significant to note that the alleged order in compliance whereof the Tehsildar claims to have visited the village has not been proved in evidence. It would, therefore, be legitimate to presume that it produced, the said order would have gone against the prosecution. 7. For all these reasons, the conclusion is irresistible that the appellants who-were in possession of the land comprised in Khasra No. land 3 on June 17, 1974, had a right of private defence in that property. It is not established on record that the Teshilder was carrying any order for delivery of possession of the land in dispute to the village panchayat. It is also not proved that the villagers were acting under the directions of the Tehsildar in doing the work of Pathargarhi on the said land. Section 99, Indian Penal Code is therefore not attracted to the facts of this case, the appellants' right of private defence of property is not affected by section 99 at all. 8. It is also not proved that the villagers were acting under the directions of the Tehsildar in doing the work of Pathargarhi on the said land. Section 99, Indian Penal Code is therefore not attracted to the facts of this case, the appellants' right of private defence of property is not affected by section 99 at all. 8. It has been proved on record that all the three appellants and three other persons of their family sustained injuries in the course of the same transaction. The prosecution did not try to explain their injuries. Learned trial Judge too did not apply his mind to this aspect of the case. The appellants can therefore legitimately claim to have acted in exercise of their right of private defence of body in addition to property. 9. For all these reasons, the appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence against the appellants is set aside. Instead, they are acquitted. They are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged.Appeal allowed. Appellants acquitted. *******