1. In this suit, the plaintiff complains that the 1st defendant has trespassed on property not included in the lease, and prays for an injunction and for damages. The trespass was denied. The District Munsif found for the plaintiff and awarded damages.

2. On appeal, the District Judge held that as the plaintiff was only one of the tenants in common who laid claim to the property, he was not entitled to maintain the suit alone. The Judge personally inspected the locality and on the strength of that inspection found that the property was included in the lease.

3. We are unable to agree with the District Judge. Although there is a difference of opinion regarding the right of one of the tenants in common to eject the lessee from the leased premises there is no doubt that as against a trespasser any one of the co-owners can maintain an action. Radha Prashad Wasti v. Esuf (1881) I.L.R. 7 C. 414 Harendra Narain Chowdhury v. Moran (1885) I.L.R. 16 C 40 Hira Lal v. Banion (1883) I.L.R. 5 A 602 and per Best J. in Gopalasami v. Periasami Tevar (1895) 6 M.L.J. 27. Even in Gopal Ram Mohuri v. Dhakeswar Pershad Narain Singh (1908) I.L.R. 35 C 807 which lays down that one of the co-sharers