One co-owner can bring a suit for ejecting a trespasser from the property owned by him and others, and the plaintiff's sisters were not necessary parties to the suit.

( 1 ) THIS is a defendant's appeal. The only point urged in this appeal is that the plaintiff's suit is liable to be dismissed for nonjoinder of necessary parties. The question of non-joinder was raised in the trial Court and an issue was framed in that connection. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the suit being one for ejectment, the sisters of the plaintiff-respondent are not necessary parties to the suit. It accordingly repelled the contention of the defendant that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The first appellate Court affirmed the decision of the trial Court on this point.

( 2 ) MR. B. V. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kanakarathanammal v. V. S. Loganath Mudaliar, AIR1965 SC 271 , [1964 ]6 SCR1 , the view taken by the Courts below must be held to be an erroneous one and further as the plaintiff had persisted in prosecuting the suit without impleading the necessary parties, the suit ought to be dismissed. The question for consideration is whether the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kanakarathanammal's case, AIR1965 SC 271 , [1964 ]6 SCR1 , governs the facts of the present case.

( 3 ) THE suit property originally belonged to one Basavva who died on 28-8-1960 leaving behind her the plaintiff and her two sisters Mallavva and Shivalingawwa. The defendant took possession of those properties asserting that he had been adopted by Basavva to her husband. The adoption pleaded was held to be invalid in an earlier suit In the present suit, the defendant asserted that he was entitled to hold the property in view of a Will said to have been executed by Basavva bequeathing the suit properties to him. The Will in question has not been marked as Exhibit in the case nor has it been proved. The Courts below have concurrently come to the conclusion that the defendant is a trespasser in the suit property. It may be noted that the present suit is one for ejectment of the defendant from the suit properly.

( 4 ) IT may be further noted that in the plaint, the plaintiff specifically admits that she and her two sisters have inherited the property as the heirs of her mother and that they are the joint owners of those properties. Her case is that she being the eldest sister was entitled to sue for ejecting the defendant who is a trespasser from the suit property. The fact that she is the eldest amongst co-owners has no relevance. It is not a suit by a manager of a Hindu family. It is a suit by one of the co-owners. Therefore, the sole question that falls for decision is whether one co-owner can sue to eject a trespasser from the suit property without impleading in the case the other co-owners.

( 5 ) THERE is a catena of decisions which have taken the view that one of the co-owners can bring a suit for ejecting a trespasser from the property owned by him and others either jointly or as co-owners, the basis being that he has a right to hold every inch of the joint property until a division takes place. The judicial opinion on this point is uniform -- see the decisions in Ahmad sahib v. Magnesite Syndicate Ltd. . AIR 1915 Mad 1214, Tuljaram Harkisondas v. Harkisan jagjivan, AIR 1929 Bom 244, Currimbhoy and Co. , Ltd. v. L. A. Creet, AIR 1930 Cal 113, sambhu Gosain v. Piyari Mian, AIR 1941 Pat 351, Ambika v. Rameshwar, AIR 1946 Oudh 221, ram Kali v. Pahilwan Singh, AIR1953 All 331 , Biharilal v. Wasundarabai, AIR 1956 Madh-B 35 and Rama Motibhai v. Dalwadi Tupoo Ram, AIR1956 Bom 264. No decision taking a contrary view has been brought to my notice. The ratio of the decision of the Madras High Court in Adhilakshmi Animal v. T. Nallasivan Pillai, AIR 1944 Mad 530 or that of this Court in Somalinge Gowda v. Kalyanamma, S. A. No. 269 of 1959 (Mys) does not bear on the point under consideration. They dealt with cases where one co-owner sought to set aside the alienation made by other co-owner or where one co-o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document