One of several coparceners can maintain a suit for ejectment against a trespasser, even without impleading the other coparceners as parties.

1. The plaintiff In O.S. No. 1280 of 1966 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, who lost in part before the courts below, is the appellant herein. The suit was instituted by the appellant for recovery of possession of the portion marked “A” and “Koodam” in the plaint plan, for permanent injunction restraining the respondents-defendant from interfering with the appellants possession regarding the other portions of the suit premises and for future mesne profits. The appellant succeeded before the Trial Court as well as the first appellate court except with regard to the portions marked “A” and “Koodam” in the plaint plan and with regard to that property the appellants suit was dismissed. There is not much of controversy with regard to the facts of this case. There was a suit, O.S. No. 532 of 1958 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras which was for partition. Since the property could not be divided between all the persons entitled to the same, the same was sold In court auction on 18th, August 1963 and the appellant purchased the said property. She obtained the sale certificate on 9th October 1963. Thereafter she instituted the present suit for recovery of possession of the property on the basis of the said court auction sale.

2. The first respondent herein, whose husband is the second respondent and whose daughter and son-in-law are the fourth and third respondents respectively, put forward the contention that one person by name Narasimhalu father of the first respondent who was also entitled to a share in the property, was not impleaded in O.S. No. 532 of 1958 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, and that therefore the sale of the suit property was not valid and binding.

3. The Courts below accepted the contention of the first respondent and therefore dismissed the suit of the appellant so far as the portions masked “A” and “Koodam” is the plaint plan are concerned and it is the correctness of this conclusion of the courts below that is challenged before me in this Second Appeal.

4. There is no controversy before me that Narasimhalu was entitled to a share in the property. He died in 1930 itself and he was stated to have been survived by two sons, by name, Theagarajan and Kotiah. Therefore in O.S. No. 532 of 1958 Theagarajan or Kotiah or their sons should have been impleaded as parties to the suit. The first respondent herein is only the daughter of Narasimhalu and therefore she was not entitled to be impleaded as a patty to that suit on even as a person entitled to the share of Narasimbalu who died in 1930 itself. It is in view of this only, the learned I Additional Judge came to the conclusion that the possession of the first respondent was cot lawful. Therefore it is clear that the first respondent herein was in the position of a trespasser only. Consequently the only question that had to be considered wee whether the appellant herein having purchased the interest of all the coparceners except that of Narasimhalu was entitled to maintain the present suit for ejectment against the first respondent who was a trespasser. The learned I Additional Judge after referring to some decisions, in Paragraph 10 of his Judgment, namely Kanna Pisharody v. Narayana Somyajopad , I.L.R. 3 Madras 234 Balakrishna Moreshwer Kunte v. Muncipality of Mohad I.L.R. 10 Bombay 32 Shanmuga Moopanar v. Subbayya Moopanar 42 M.L.J. 133 Vedakanu Nadar v. Ranganatha Mudallar 1938 (2) M.L.J. 663; 48 L.W. 829 and Adiyappa v. Rachappa A.I.R. 1948 Bom. 211 (F.B.) held that one of the several co-sharers or trustees cannot maintain a suit against a stranger. None of the above decisions appears to have laid down any such proposition of law. All that is stated is, if several co-sharers are entitled to the property, thee should be impleaded as parties either as plaintiffs or as defendants. None of those decisions has laid down the proposition that one of the several co-sharers cannot maintain a suit for ejectment against a trespasser. H