Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.

1. It is always desirable that when there are cases and cross-cases the appeals arising from such cases should ha posted before and tried by the same Bench. However, this appeal having come up before me, I am bound to deal with it on the evidence on the record, and on that evidence I have no hesitation in holding that the appellants have not been proved to be guilty of the offences for the commission of which they have been convicted and sentenced. The offences charged were rioting, rioting with deadly weapons and causing hurt and grievous hurt. The dispute was between the Kallars and Pallars of Shoroi Kudipatti. The Kallars who were larger in number and considerably more influential than the Pallars had been making arrangement for the purpose of catching fish in the Oorani with the help of certain Muhammadans from Trichinopoly. The Pallars were objecting to it. The evidence that is accepted by the learned Sessions Judge really is the evidence of the disinterested witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 and 6. Taking their evidence and the finding of the Sessions Judge thereon, there can be no doubt as to what took place. There was an attempt at mediation by