S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. The significant question necessitating the admission of this appeal for hearing by a Full Bench is whether one co-sharer can institute and maintain a suit for possession against a trespasser in respect of the entire property (irrespective of his own share therein) without impleading the other co-sharers. Equally on the anvil is the correctness of the ratio of the Division Bench in Smt. Daya Kaur V/s. Jaswant Singh. 1971 Cur LJ 1001: (AIR 1972 Punj 355), holding that in such a suit the co-sharer is entitled to a decree in respect of his share only.

2. Since the aforesaid issue is admittedly the only one pressed in this Regular Second Appeal. it is unnecessary to advert to the facts in any great detail. Suffice it to mention that the plaintiff-respondents had brought the suit for possession of land measuring 98 Kanals 5 Marlas which originally belonged to one Gurmukh Singh who had died issue less. The stand of the plaintiffs was that they and Balbir Singh defendant 2. being the nearest agnates of Gurmukh Singh. were co-heirs and were. Therefore, entitled to recover Possession from defendant 1. Ajmer Singh, who was a mere trespasser thereon. The suit was