G.K. Misra, C.J.
1. Complainant's case is that the disputed land was in his possession he sowed paddy; there were paddy seedlings on the land and the petitioners went upon the land with ploughs and other weapons on 22nd of May, 1971 at about 11 a.m. and damaged the paddy plants causing loss of about Rs. 100/- to the opposite party. The defence was that the disputed land was in possession of the petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 is father and petitioners 2 and 3 are his sons. A number of documents were exhibited on either side. Prosecution examined six witnesses. The learned Magistrate in a fairly well considered judgment discussed the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that the opposite party was in possession of the disputed land from 1955 onwards and on the date of occurrence the petitioners forcibly entered into the land and destroyed the paddy seedlings.
2. Mr. A. K. Rao very strenuously contended that the disputed land was recorded in the name of the father of petitioner No. 1 Gani in 1930 settlement and since then the petitioners are in possession. This aspect of the matter has been taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate and rightly he held that the father of Gani executed a deed of surrender relinquishing his interest in the land. It is not necessary to delve into the ancient history of the case. The limited question for consideration is whether the opposite party was in possession of the disputed property and grew the paddy seedlings which the petitioners, though out of possession for long years before the occurrence, destroyed. On the finding and the analysis of the evidence the conclusion was well justified that the petitioners taking advantage of the fact that once upon a time the disputed property was recorded in the name of the father of petitioner No. 1 forcibly took law into their hands and destroyed the paddy seedlings. On the finding no case of bona fide claim of right is made out. The claim is a mere pretence. Law is well settled that if the claim is a mere pretence the accused is not entitled to claim a bona fide right.
3. Each of the petitioners has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 40/-. The sentence errs on the side of leniency as they have destroyed the paddy seedlings. As notice of enhancement of sentence has not been given, I do not propose to do it at this late stage.
4. The revision has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed.