JUDGMENT

MOHAN, J.:—Undaunted by the failure in both the Courts below, the appellant has come up in appeal before this Court. The facts lie in a narrow compass.

2. The appellant filed Special Civil Suit No. 54 of 1970 in a Court of Civil Judge at Jamnagar for recovery of possession together with mesne profits, of suit properties which are survey No. 34 measuring an extent of 8 acres 7 gunthas and survey No. 35 measuring an extent of 9 acres 8 gunthas. There is also a house situate in survey No. 34. According to the appellant, he purchased the property from Narashankar Velji and others by a registered sale deed dated 12-2-1968 for a sum of Rupees 6,000 /- As such, he became the sole owner of the suit property. Vashram Vasta was originally the tenant of the appellants predecessor-in-title. After the death of said Vashram Vasta, defendant Nos. I to 4, his sons and Defendant No. 5, his widow continued in possession of the suit property. A suit notice was issued on 14-4-1968 demanding possession but that did not evoke any response. Therefore, the suit.

3. The respondents in the written statement questioned inter alia the jurisdiction of the civil Court to try the suit as it was barred by the provisions of-the Saurashtra Barkhali Abolition Act, 1951. The certificate issued by Mamlatdar was without jurisdiction, as a matter of fact, the same had been obtained by fraud. Even otherwise, assuming the suit was maintainable, the appellant had not become the owner of the suit property under the sale deed dated 12-2-1968. There were other co-owners of the suit properties. They had not been impleaded in the suit and, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.

4. The learned trial Judge found that the Court had jurisdiction to try the suit and the same was not barred under the provisions of Saurashstra Barkhali Abolition Act, 1951. However, it was held that all the co-owners of the suit property were necessary parties. Hence, for non-joinder of necessary parties, the suit would be bad. In this view, he dismissed the suit.

5. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the matter was taken up in First Appeal No. 194 of 1972 filed in High Court of Gujarat. The Division Bench relying on Nanalal Girdharlal v. Gulamnabi, 13 Guj LR 880: (AIR 1973 Guj 131) held :

"In the absence of other co-owners, the plaintiff suit cannot be held to be maintainable."

6. Thus, it dismissed the appeal.

7. Hence, this appeal by leave.

8. Shri P.H. Parekh, learned counsel for the appellant would urge that the Courts below have completely misdirected themselves as to the maintainability of the suit and the non-joinder of necessary parties. First and foremost, it is not correct to state that a co-owner cannot maintain a suit. This Court has taken a view in Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath, (1977) 1 SCR 395, that for the purpose of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, a co-owner can maintain a suit. In Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak, (1977) 3 SCR 412, again for the purpose of Delhi Rent Control Act, it has been held that the absence of other co-owners cannot disentitle the landlord from suing for eviction. In Pal Singh v. Sunder Singh (dead) by LRs., (1989) 1 SCR 67, it is stated that when the other co-owner did not object to the eviction, one co-owner could maintain an action for eviction even in the absence of the other co-owner. In A. Viswanatha Pillai v. Special Tahsildar for Land Acquisition No. IV, (1991) 4 SCC J7, relying on such propositions, this Court has taken the view that any co-owner could file a suit and recover the property against strangers. This being the law, the legal proposition as laid down in these cases ought to have been applied.

9. Factually speaking, the written statement does not specifically say as to who are the other co-owners and the nature of interest they possessed. A vague allegation that there are other co-owners would not be enough. The case of the appellant throughout was that there was nobody else who had any interest in