JUDGMENT
R.L. Khurana, J.
1. This appeal is by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 27-5-2004 of the learned Additional District Judge, Una, reversing the judgment and decree dated 17-8-2001 of the learned Sub-Judge 1st Class (1), Amb. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for possession of the land in dispute against the defendant by pleading that the defendant has encroached upon the land in dispute. The defendant while resisting the suit raised an objection that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It was averred that the plaintiff was only a co-sharer and in the absence of other co-sharers the suit was bad.
2. The learned trial Court after having held the defendant as encroacher over the land in dispute non-suited the plaintiff simply on the ground that the suit filed by the plaintiff without impleading the other cosharers as parties was bad.
3. In appeal preferred by the plaintiff, the learned Additional District Judge after . setting aside the Judgment and decree of the learned trial Court granted a decree for possession of the land in dispute in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Additional District Judge held that the suit of the plaintiff as one of the co-sharer of the land in dispute was maintainable.
4. hi the present appeal, the only question agitated was that a suit filed by a cosharer without impleading the other cosharers for possession against trespasser was bad in law and the learned Additional ..District Judge has red In granting the decree in favour of the plaintiff.
5. The question whether a co-sharer can Institute and maintain a suit for possession against a trespasser In respect of the entire property Irrespective of his share therein without impleading the other co-sharers, is maintainable or not, came up before a Full Bench of the Patna High Court In Ram Niranjan Das v. Loknath Mandal. AIR 1070 Patna 1 and It was held that such a suit by a co-sharer without impleading the other cosharcrs was maintainable and that a cosharer can recover the possession of the : entire land from a trespasser irrespective of his share therein.
6. A similar question also arose before tlic Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ajmer Singh (deceased by L.U.’s) v. Shamsher Singh, AIR 1984 Punj and Har 58. Following the ratio laid down by the Full Bench of the Patna High Court, it was held that suit by a co-sharer for possession against a trespasser without impleadlng the other co-sharers is maintainable and a decree for possession can be passed. I am in full agreement with the ratio laid down by the Full Bench of the Patna High Court as well as Full Bench of Punjab and I Haryana High Court. I. In view of the said ratio, learned Additional District Judge rightly held the suit to be maintainable and granted a decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff.
7. No question of law muchhess a substantial question of law is involved in the “present appeal. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.
CMP No. 753 of 2004:
8. Intructions in view of the orders passed in the main matter.