KUCHIBHOTTA SEETAKAMA SASTRI Vs. KUCHIBHOTTA SIVARAMAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is argued that this suit should have been dismissed on the technical ground that two of the agraharamdars, who are joint owners, were not parties and that the plaintiffs Pleader declined to add them as parties. Ahmad Sahib Shutari V/s. Magnesite. Syndicate, Ltd. 29 Ind. Cas. 60 : 39 M. 501 : 2 L. W. 460 : 17 M. L. T. 387 : 28 M. L. J. 598. establishes the principle that one or more co-owners can maintain an action for ejectment of a trespasser. This case quoted the opinion of Best, J., in Gopalasami V/s. Periasami Tevar 6 M. L. J. 27., who held dissenting from Shephard, J., who sat with him that a Hindu coparcener could sue alone to recover joint family property without making the other coparceners parties to the suit.

(2.) The learned Judge was in favour of remanding the suit for fresh disposal after joining the plaintiffs as defendants, observing that the trespasser-defendants could insist on the procedure in order to protect themselves from a multiplicity of suits. That was a decision under the C. P. C. of 1882 before Section 31 was amended, as regards non-joinder of parties by Order I, Rule 9.

(3.) I do not think that the Bench which decided Ahmad Sahib Shutari V/s. Magnsite Syndicate Ltd. 29 Ind. Cas. 60 : 39 M. 501 : 2 L. W. 460 : 17 M. L. T. 387 : 28 M. L. J. 598., intended to import all Best, J's observations with their exposition of the law as it stands under the Code of 1905.