Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

25. Taking into consideration all what has been discussed above, we are of the opinion that the appellants had absolutely no right of private defence of person.

26. We next proceed to consider the right of private defence of property. About one year before the occurrence on 7-9-1974 Udai appellant moved an application against Salig Ram (injured), his brothers Mani Ram, Vijendra Singh and 5 other persons under Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act to the Sub-Divisional Officer. By means of this application he desired demarcation of his plot No. 378 measuring 1.93 acres. In the body of the application Udal stated that he is Sirdar of the said plot, that the plots of the 9 opposite parties are aroimd plot No. 378, that the partition mends were common, that the opposite parties had broken the mends of all sides on 10-8-1974, that the opposite parties were not willing to reconstruct the mends at their original places. The alleged illegal act was done about one month before the giving of the application for demarcation. It is obvious that the farmers/villagers break the mends with the intention to encroach upon the land of another. It means that Salig Ram and his brothers had broken the mends with the intention to encroach upon a part of plot No. 378. From this application we can also infer that Salig Ram and his brothers had taken illegal possession of a portion of the land of the plot of Udal. On 22-5-1975 the Supervisor Qanungo submitted report Ex. Ka 39 to the Sub-Divisional Officer. The report shows that, he went to the spot on 12-5-1975 and made survey/measurements particularly in respect of plot No. 378. Plot No. 382 undisputedly belongs to Salig Ram. This plot is to the West of plot No. 378 as is evident from the village map Ex. Ka 40. The Supervisor Qanungo found that some portion of plot No. 378 was included in plot No. 382. He showed the encorachment in map, part of his report. On the basis of the report Ex. Ka 39, the Sub-Divisional Officer passed ex parte order on 27-6-1975 on the application of Udal approving the report. On 5-7-1975 Salig Ram moved an application for setting aside the order dated 27-6-1975. The order was set aside on 23-1-1976. It will thus be noticed that the present occurrence took place between the date of the ex parte order dated 27-6-1975 and the order dated 23-1-1976 setting aside the ex parte order.