JUDGMENT : STANLEY, J. 1. I have no doubt in my mind as to the propriety of the judgment of the learned Judge of this Court from whose decree this appeal has been preferred, affirming, as it does, the decree of the Court of first instance, and also the decree of the lower appellate Court. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen, was brought by the plaintiff, Saran Rai to recover joint possession with the defendants, first party, of a moiety of sir land, consisting of about 20 bighas, and also for compensation on account of the produce of this sir land for the year 1308 Fasli. It appears that the plaintiff and Sangam Rai, defendant No. 2, are brothers and joint owners of the village called Mallap. Sangam Rai sold one-third of the village to defendants appellants, and they thereupon had mutation of names effected, and, as has been found by the Courts below, took forcible possession of 10 bighas odd of sir land, the subject-matter of the present appeal. In consequence of this act of the defendants the suit Was instituted, and the only questions for our determination in this appeal are—(1) whether the Court was justified under the circumstances in passing a decree restoring the plaintiff to joint possession of the sir land, and (2) whether or not the plaintiff was entitled to damages in respect of the produce of the sir land for the year 1308 Fasli, by the reason of the wrongful ouster., It appears to me that the learned Judge of this Court, and also the District Judge, are perfectly right in the decision at which they arrived, namely, that if the plaintiff has been in joint possession of property and has been illegally ousted from joint possession of any portion of that property be a co-owner, he is entitled to be restored to such joint possession. That is what was held in this case. It is not necessary for us to determine how the decree of the Court is to be carried out. It may be, if the parties do not come to an amicable arrangement and divide the sir land in question between them or make an exchange, that it will be necessary to go to the Revenue Court and have the joint property partitioned. It may be, if the parties do not come to an amicable arrangement and divide the sir land in question between them or make an exchange, that it will be necessary to go to the Revenue Court and have the joint property partitioned. Be that as it may, however, it seems to me that no fault can be found with the decree which has been passed in this case, which merely declares that the plaintiff who has been illegally ousted from joint possession of certain land, is entitled to be restored to such possession. Accordingly, being of this opinion, I would dismiss the appeal, so far as this point is concerned. 2. As regards the claim for damages it appears to me that the Court having found that the defendants, first party, illegally ousted the plaintiff from joint possession, they are responsible to him for the damages which resulted from that wrongful act. 3. For these reasons, in my opinion, the appeal fails and ought to be dismissed with costs. BANERJI, J. I am of the same opinion. Where a party, who was in joint possession of property with another, has been wrong fully excluded from such joint possession, he is entitled to a decree to be put back into the possession which he enjoyed before he was evicted. That is the decree which has been granted to the respondent in this case, and I can find no fault with it. The learned vakil for the appellant mainly relied upon the ruling in Rahman Chaudhri vs. Salamat Chaudhri, [1901] A.W.N. 48. I must confess that with some of the observations contained in that judgment, I am not prepared to agree. But as the learned Judge of the lower appellate Court points out that case is distinguishable from the present and cannot be regarded as an authority in support of the appellant's contention. I would dismiss the appeal. BURKITT, J. On the finding by the learned District Judge that the plaintiff has been illegally ousted from joint possession of certain sir lands, I concur with the learned Judge of this High Court that he is entitled to be restored to that possession. He is entitled to be restored to that from which he was illegally ousted. During the argument the case of Rahman Chaudhri vs. Salamat Chaudhri, [1901] A.W.N. 48, was cited. He is entitled to be restored to that from which he was illegally ousted. During the argument the case of Rahman Chaudhri vs. Salamat Chaudhri, [1901] A.W.N. 48, was cited. The facts in that case, however, differ wholly from the facts in the case we are now considering, and it does not appear to be in any way in point. I concur in the observations of the learned Chief Justice on the question of damages. I would dismiss this appeal. BY THE COURT: The order of the Court is that the appeal be dismissed with costs.