IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RSA No.279 of 2001. Date of decision: 01.07.2011. Raj Kumari and Another … …Appellants Versus Gurditta … …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Appellants: Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr.Anuj Nag, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This is the plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge-(II), Kangra at Dharamshala, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs-appellants herein for possession of land measuring 0-01-42 hectares situated in Tikka Teora, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra, H.P. 2. The plaintiffs-appellants herein instituted a suit on the allegation that the respondent was a trespasser on the suit land. Ten issues were settled on the pleadings. The crucial issue is with respect to the entitlement of the plaintiffs for possession of the land. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 3. The case of the defendant was that of the of tenancy, but the second ground taken was that the Government was the co-sharer on the land and in this event without the Government being impleaded and joined as a party the entire suit deserves to be dismissed. These points were negatived by the trial Court. 4. Appeal preferred before the learned District Judge was allowed. Learned District Judge though notices that the respondent herein was a trespasser, but the decree prayed for could not be granted to the plaintiff because the State, which is also an owner, had not been joined as one of the parties to the suit. 5. This appeal was admitted on the following question of law:- “1. Whether the learned first appellate Court has erred in holding that a suit for possession by one co- sharer against a trespasser is not maintainable, especially, when the other co-sharer is the State?” 6. I find that the learned District Judge has misdirected himself. By his judgment, he has granted a superior right to a trespasser who has been recorded as such over the land. It is by now well settled that the suit for possession by one co-owner against a trespasser is maintainable. (See: Currimbhoy and Co.Ltd. vs. L.A. Creet and Others, AIR 1930 Calcutta 113, Sheotahal Dube vs. Lat Narain Prasad Chand and 3 Another, AIR 1931 Allahabad 695(1), Ram Charan vs. Bansidhar and others, AIR 1942 Allahabad 358, Ambika and others vs. Rameshwar, AIR (33) 1946 Oudh 221 and Kanakku Raman Pillai, Narayana Pillai and others vs. Kanakku Ramakrishna Pillai and others, AIR 1952 Travancore-Cochin 195). This appeal is disposed of accordingly. July 1, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.