It is seen from the judgment that the complainant is the illegitimate daughter of Dhanabagyam. The accused Kamalammal and the complainant Meenakshiammal have litigated in Civil Courts for the title to and possession of the disputed property. The learned Ninth Presidency Magistrate notices in the judgment that P.W. 1 admitted that she had failed in the Civil Court. It is also seen from Ex. D. 1 the suit filed by the accused for the recovery of possession of the property in the occupation of the complainant was decreed in her favour on 28-10-1968. The learned Presidency Magistrate notices that although Civil Courts has given a finding in favour of the accused, it cannot be straightway held that the accused has come into occupation of the immoveable property unless she could show by evidence that after taking necessary legal process in execution of the decree following the judgment of the Civil Court, she had been inducted into possession of the immoveable property covered by the suit. The prayer on the part of the accused in the Civil suit is for possession of the disputed property. Assuming that the facts are proved against the accused that she broke open the lock and go