JUDGMENT

Agarwal, J - This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the respondent Haji Qurban Ali against 18 persons for the recovery of Rs. 450 as damages on the allegation that the defendants dishonestly let loose their cattle and grazed his sugar cane crop on 3.97 acres. The suit was contested by defendants 1, to 5. They denied that their cattle ever grazed the, plaintiff's, crop and also pleaded that the suit was bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action. It was said by the plaintiff that defendant 6, had released the cattle of defendants 1 to 5 from, the pound as he was their servant. Defendant 6 admitted that fact. Defendant 9 admitted that his cattle had grazed the plaintiff's crop. Defendant 12 also admitted it but stated that his cattle had done so in his absence. Defendant n denied that his cattle had grazed the plaintiff's crop. Defendant 13 was absent. The plaintiff compromised with defendants 7, 8 and, 10. They paid certain amounts to the plaintiff and were exempted. The learned Munsif decreed the suit against defendants 9 and 12 only and dismissed ill against the rest. He held that there was to misjoinder of parties and causes of action but it was not proved that the cattle of any of the defendants other than 9 and 12 had grazed the plaintiff's crop, and he awarded nominal damages amounting to Rs. 10 to the plaintiff against defendants 9 and 12. There was an appeal by the plaintiff and the learned Civil Judge in appeal decreed the suit for Rs. 200 against defendants 1 to 5, 9 and 11 to 13 and dismissed it against defendant 6. Defendants 1 to 5, 9 and 11 have appealed to this Court.

2. The first point argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the suit was bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action. Section 99, Civil P.C., provides that no decree shall be reversed or substantially varied, nor shall any case be remanded in appeal on account of any misjoinder of parties or causey of action or any error, de. feet or irregularity in any proceedings in the suit not affecting the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the Court. I need not go into the question whether there was misjoinder of parties and causes of action because even if there was any, the appellants cannot take advantage of the fact as enacted in Section 99. I do not think that the appellants have been prejudiced by reason of misjoinder and there is no question of the jurisdiction of the Court. It is argued that a joint decree has been passed against all the defendants and they have been prejudiced in this way. But if the defendants were jointly liable they have not been prejudiced and if they were not, the decree against them will be only as regards the amount for which they are liable.

3. second point argued is that all the defendants were trespassers and as the plaintiff compromised with three of them, he could not pursue his remedy against the others. Reliance is placed on Raghunath Singh v. Mukandi Lal, AIR1936All780 , Makhan Lal Lolaram v. Panchamlal Sheoprasad, A.I.R 1934 Nag. 226. In the Allahabad case the plaintiff had sued for damages for defamation. Two persons had defamed him but he accepted an apology from one and sued the other. It was remarked that where; there are joint tortfeasors, a compromise with one of them would debar the plaintiff from seeking a remedy against the others, but the principle was held not to be applicable to that case. In the Nagpur caseA.I.R. 1934 Nag. 226, it was held that if satisfaction is accepted as full and complete as against one person it operates in respect of the entire cause of action. In the present case the plaintiff had exempted only those defendants with whom he had compromised. He had not released his entire cause of action. It was held in Basharat Beg v. Hira Lal, A.I.R. 1932 All. 401 that if a plaintiff enters into a compromise with one joint tortfeasor, it is no bar to a decree against the others. The case in Ram Kumar Singh v. Shaikh Ali Husain ('090 31 All.