P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned additional Public Prosecutor. ( 2 ) THE State had preferred the present appeal as against an order of acquittal made by the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise cases, Rangareddy district in C. C. No. S21 of 2002, dated 1. 4. 2003. ( 3 ) THE matter is coming up for admission. ( 4 ) THE learned Additional Public prosecutor had pointed out that Ex. P8 is the sale deed in favour of P. W. 1 and though p. Ws. 2 and 3 have not supported the prosecution by virtue of Exs. P8 and Ex. P9 the case of the prosecution can be believed and the acquittal recorded by the learned magistrate cannot be sustained. ( 5 ) THE case of the prosecution is that one Shivarama Krishna Society, H. M. T. Nagar, Nacharam is the owner of Plot nos. l75/b, 190/b comprising of 600 yards and P. W. 5 is the President of the said society. Out of the same, one Bhaskar Rao purchased 300 yards in Plot No. l75/b and 196 yards in Plot No. 190/b in the year 1980. The remaining 104 yards of land in plot No. 190/b was left over as the same situate under the high-tension wire. Subsequently, P. W. 1 purchased the said area of 104 square yards in Plot No. 190/b. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 27-3-1998 at 7-00 p. m. , P. W. I lodged a complaint before the Sub-Inspector of police, Nacharam stating that one Giri constructed a compound wall on the said land over night without having any right and a case under Section 447 of the indian Penal Code was registered and after completion of investigation a chargesheet was filed. P. Ws. 2 and 3, who were said to be the eye-witnesses to the incident have not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile and the prosecution got marked their statements as exs. P2 and P3 during their cross-examination. Ex. P8 is the sale deed under which it is stated that P. W. I had purchased 104 square yards of the land in Plot No. 190/ b. Ex. P9 is the Encumbrance Certificate of the said land. As per Ex. P2 and P3 during their cross-examination. Ex. P8 is the sale deed under which it is stated that P. W. I had purchased 104 square yards of the land in Plot No. 190/ b. Ex. P9 is the Encumbrance Certificate of the said land. As per Ex. P8 it is clear that P. W. I had purchased the said land from Shivarama Krishna Co-operative housing Society on 31-8-1997. P. W. 5, the former President of the Society was examined to prove this aspect. ( 6 ) THE respondent herein, the accused filed Ex. D2 showing that he purchased the same plot from one Lalitha and the said Lalitha purchased the said plot from Shivarama Krishna Housing Society on 8-5-1981 long prior to Ex. P8. P. W. 5 in his cross-examination admitted that the society had sold the same plot to one Lalitha under Ex. D1 and subsequently sold the same plot to P. W. I ignoring the registration of the plot under Ex. Dl in favour of Lalitha. Thus, from the evidence available on record, it is clear that the present litigation was created because of the sale deeds executed by the Society aforesaid and thus, there is a bona fide dispute between the parties. In silla Ramulu; v. State, 1971 Crl. LJ 1401, while dealing with the criminal trespass and bona fide claim of right, the Orissa High court held as under: "bona fide claim of right" which would prevent a trespass into the house from being a criminal offence must be a claim with regard to the right to enter into the house. It is the entry into the house which must have been made in bona fide claim of right in order that the entry may not amount to a criminal trespass. " here is a bona fide dispute between the parties claiming under the sale deeds. The anterior title of the accused can be_traced long prior to the title, which is being claimed by P. W. I under Ex. P8. This is clear from exs. Dl and D2 and also the evidence of p. W. 5. " here is a bona fide dispute between the parties claiming under the sale deeds. The anterior title of the accused can be_traced long prior to the title, which is being claimed by P. W. I under Ex. P8. This is clear from exs. Dl and D2 and also the evidence of p. W. 5. ( 7 ) SECTION 441 of the Indian Penal Code defines the criminal trespass reads as under:"criminal trespass: Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property or having lawfully entered into or upon such property unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence". Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under:"punishment for criminal trespass : whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, with fine which may extend to three months, with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. " ( 8 ) WHEN both possession and title definitely would be doubtful in a case of this nature, the learned Magistrate is well justified in recording acquittal in the light of the scant evidence available on the alleged commission of the offence. Hence, this Court sees no justifiable grounds to admit the appeal. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission.