DHANNA Vs. CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the defendants second appeal against whom the appellants suit for recovery of possession over the land in dispute was decreed by the trial court, the first appellate court confirming the same.

(2.) WE have heard the parties and have examined the record. The validity of the decisions of the lower courts has been challenged before us mainly on two grounds. Both of them are, however, without any substance. The first contention is that the respondent alone had no right in bring this suit against them in asmuchas there are other co -sharers as well of the land in dispute. A co -sharer is entitled to share in every inch of land comprised in the property. If a trespasser interferes with his possession he is certainly entitled to being an action against him. In such cases no question of right of other co -sharers arises for determination, as the only point that should be decided is the right of the plaintiff to retain possession against the defendant who is a rank trespasser. If any authority be needed for this view it will be found in A.I.R, 1946 Oudh, page 221. The other contention is that the lower appellate court had misinterpreted the statement of Dhanna. This too is Baseless. Dhanna had clearly stated that he constructed the bada only about 8 or 10 years ago and that prior to it he had been tethering cattle only. Using a vacant land for various temporary purposes like tethering of cattle or storing of fodder does not necessarily amount to the assertion of a claim hostile to the owner thereof. (The plaintiff will be presumed to be in possession of such land until the defendant begins to build on it or do some other overt act of a similar nature as to convey a clear challenge to the owner of his title. There is thus no substance in this appeal which is hereby rejected.