A co-sharer can institute and maintain a suit for possession against a trespasser in respect of the entire property without impleading the other co-sharers and secure a decree for the same irrespective of his own share therein.

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 contested only by defendant 1 Ajmer Singh. whilst Balbir Singh defendant 2 filed a separate written statement in which he admitted the claim of the plaintiffs. The trial Court decreed the suit to the extent of half share to the property holding that the plaintiffs could bring the suit regarding their share only. The plaintiff-respondents and defendant-appellant Ajmer Singh appealed against the said judgment. Thee appellate Court dismissed the appeal of Ajmer Singh defendant 1 and allowing the appeal of the plaintiff-respondents held that they could bring the suit for the whole of the property and consequently decreed the suit accordingly.

3. The present appeal came up for admission before my learned brother R.N. Mittal. J. The only contention raised on behalf of the appellants was that the suit could be decreed qua the half share of the plaintiff s alone. In support of this contention reliance was Placed on Smt. Daya Kaur s case (AIR 1972 Punjab 355) (supra). Noticing that the main-stream of precedent was wholly contrary to Smt. Daya Kaur s case (supra) the appeal was admitted for hearing by a Full Bench.

4. As before the Single Bench so before us Mr. H.S. Wasu. the learned counsel for the appellant forcefully reiterated the contention that the suit of the plaintiffs could be decreed only as retards their half share in the suit property alone and not in its entirety and buttressed the same on the ratio of Smt. Daya Kaur s case (supra).

5. It appears to me that the issue herein is so substantially covered by the precedent that it would be perhaps wasteful to examine it on principle. There is a consistent line of authority now more than half century old not only within this Jurisdiction but equally in other High Courts taking a view diametrically opposite from what is sought to be canvassed on behalf of the appellant. The true rationale underlying this view cannot perhaps be better epitomised than in the following words of C.J. Misra. speaking for the Full Bench in Ram Niranian Das V/s. Loknath Mandal. AIR 1970 Patna 1 (at p. 6):-

"- -- - A co-sharer, having an interest in a property, jointly with others. is apparently a person with a better title than a trespasser. Following this principle there is no reason why his suit should not be decreed. It is relevant also to consider in this connection that it is a well settled principle of law that one of the various co-owners of a property, if in possession. will be dined to be in possession on behalf of all the co-owners and it is for this reason that his Possession in law, therefore, is not regarded as adverse to other co-owners unless there is distinct proof of ouster. In that view of the matter also, the interest of an undivided co-owner or co-sharer must be taken to cover every inch of land which may b