KUCHIBHOTLA SEETARAMA SASTRI Vs. KUCHIABHOTLA 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. [1915] 39 Mad. 501, 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. Periasami, Tevar [1896] 6 M.L.J. 27., who held, dissenting from Shepherd, 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 that procedure in order to protect themselves from a multiplicity of suits. That was a decision under the Civil P.O. of 1882 before Section 31 was amended as regards non-joinder of parties by Order 1, Rule 9.

(3.) I do not think that the Bench which decided Shutari V/s. The Magnesite Syndicate, Ltd. [1915] 39 Mad. 501 intended to import all Best, J.s observations with their exposition of the law as it stands under the Code of 1908.