The main legal point established in the judgment is that while a co-owner can maintain a suit by himself for ejecting a trespasser from a property owned by him and others, an exception exists where the suing co-owner claims exclusive title to the property in derogation or denial of the rights of the other co-owners, and in such cases, the non-joinder of the other co-owners as parties to the suit will be fatal to the suit itself.

Second defendant is the appellant. The suit was one for recovery of possession of a building described in schedule B to the plaint. It was filed in the first instance by two plaintiffs, namely Sundaran Nadar Bhaskaran (the respondent), and his brother, Sukumaran. Pending the suit, Sukumaran sold his rights under two deeds of sale to one Velukutty and one Vijayakumaran Nair, after which he got himself removed from the array of parties by order dated 16-7-1982 on I.A.No.3770 of 1981. Velukutty filed I.A.No.3735 of 1981 to come on record as a defendant as an assignee from Sukumaran. It was vehemently opposed by the first plaintiff Bhaskaran alleging that Velukutty had not obtained any right over the building. He even denied any separate assignable interest in Sukumaran over the building. The Munsiff dismissed the petition observing that Bhaskaran did not want any relief against Velukutty, besides, the suit itself was at the stage of trial and evidence had been partly recorded. This order was not challenged and the suit proceeded to trial with the first plaintiff alone on record.

2. The property in question is a building described in the B Schedule, standing on the A schedule property, which belonged to one Sam David. He leased the B schedule building to the first defendant on 18-2-1974 on a rent of Rs.100/- per month under the deed of lease Ext.A1 for conducting an oil mill. The term of the lease was three years. An amount of Rs.2,500/- was received as advance. A sum of Rs.25/- per month was to be deducted from the rent as the interest on the advance amount and the balance was to be paid. Sam David conveyed his rights in the A schedule property (ie. land and buildings) to the plaintiffs under Ext.A2 dated 5-12-1979. The first defendant had meanwhile sub-leased the building to the second defendant-appellant on 5-3-1976. The lessee defaulted in payment of the rent from December 1979 onwards. Plaintiffs issued notice on 15-3-1980 terminating the tenancy. The second defendant sent reply denying the rental arrangement, and the title of the plaintiffs. The suit was thereupon filed for declaration of the plaintiffs' title, and for recovery of possession of the B schedule building with arrears of rent.

3. The first defendant admitted the lease, but pleaded ignorance of the sale of the property to the plaintiffs. He stated that he had assigned the leasehold right to the second defendant on 5-3-1976, that he had thereafter no interest in the property and was therefore an unnecessary party. According to him, there was an outright assignment of the leasehold right over the building to the second defendant and not a mere sub lease. The second defendant in her turn affirmed this plea of the first defendant, and pleaded in addition that the transfer to the plaintiffs was void for want of consideration, and therefore the plaintiffs had no title to recover possession of the building. She was running an oil mill in the premises. There was no privity of contract between her and the plaintiffs. She prayed for dismissal of the suit on these premises.

4. The second plaintiff went out of the array of parties after he assigned his share to Velukutty and Vijayakumaran Nair. The second defendant thereupon filed an additional written statement contending that the first plaintiff Bhaskaran could not be given any declaration of his title to the plaint schedule property. It was also alleged that being only a co-owner, he was not entitled to recover either possession of the building, or the arrears of rent.

5. I shall hereafter refer to Bhaskaran the surviving plaintiff, as plaintiff and the erstwhile second plaintiff as Sukumaran for purposes of convenience.

6. The trial court found that the plaintiff, who was only a co-owner of the plaint B schedule property, was not entitled to declaration of title or to a decree for recovery of possession of the building without the other co-sharers being on record as parties to the suit. He also found that the seco