JUDGMENT 1. The Plaintiff, who is the Appellant before us, is the purchaser of the right, title and interest of one Naba Krista Majumdar, who owned a 4 annas share in a taluk. By a private arrangement come to between him and his co-sharers-an arrangement which apparently took place many years ago-Naba Krista was in separate possession of certain portions of the khanabari lands belonging to all the co-sharers; and the question.raised in this appeal is whether the Plaintiff, as purchaser of the interest of the said Naba Krista Majumdar, is entitled to have possession not only over the 4 annas share of the taluk in question, but also to have actual possession of such portions of the homestead lands of which Naba Krista was in exclusive possession under the arrangement come to between all the co-sharers concerned. The Court of Appeal below has dismissed the Plaintiff's suit, so far as it ralates to the separate parcels of land in and about the khanabari, which the Plaintiff claims upon the ground that the arrangement that was come to between Naba Krista and his co-sharers could only continue so long as Naba Krista was the owner of the property, and that it came to an end as soon as Naba Krista's interest in the taluk passed to a stranger. 2. We are, however, unable to accept this view as correct. No doubt, when certain co-sharers came to an arrangement like that which was effected between Naba Krista and his co-sharers, it continues to be a good and binding arrangement until the co-sharers themselves agree to give it up, and come to some other arrangement, or until any one of the co-sharers demand a partition of the entire joint lands either in Court or out of Court; but no such partition has yet been demanded by any of the co-sharers nor does it appear that the arrangement in question was given up by the co-sharers. And the question is, whether the Plaintiff as the purchaser of the right, title and interest of Naba Krista is not entitled to be put in the same position in which that individual was at the time when his interest was sold at the execution sale. And the question is, whether the Plaintiff as the purchaser of the right, title and interest of Naba Krista is not entitled to be put in the same position in which that individual was at the time when his interest was sold at the execution sale. We think that, in the circumstances of the case, the Plaintiff is entitled to be put in the same position as Naba Krista was in respect to the separate portions of the Khanabari lands mentioned in the plaint. 3. The learned vakil for the Respondents, however, contended that all that the Plaintiff was entitled to was joint possession in respect to a 4 annas share in all and several portions of the khanabari lands, because it must be taken that the arrangement that was come to between Naba Krista and his co-sharers was abandoned, so to say, as soon as Naba Krista's interest in the property passed to a stranger, and he suggested that a decree might be given to the Plaintiff in that wise. But, upon consideration, we are of opinion that such a decree will no way be beneficial to his clients; rather, it would be most injurious to them; and Babu Dwarka Nath Chuckerbutty, on behalf of the Plaintiff-Appellant, expressed his unwillingness to accept a decree in that form upon the ground that his client is not prepared to fight with the co-sharers in Respect of every portion of the khanabari lands. In these circumstances, we are of opinion that the decree of the Court of Appeal below in so far as it disallows the Plaintiff's prayer for exclusive possession in respect of the particular plots of land formerly in the possession of Naba Krista should be set aside, and the case sent back to that Court with a view that the 8th issue raised between the parties in the Court of first instance be determined. Upon the determination of that issue, will depend the solution of the question whether the Plaintiff is entitled to be put in exclusive possession of all the lands which were formerly in the separate possession of Naba Krista, or only of the lands other than those covered by the said 8th issue. 4. Upon the determination of that issue, will depend the solution of the question whether the Plaintiff is entitled to be put in exclusive possession of all the lands which were formerly in the separate possession of Naba Krista, or only of the lands other than those covered by the said 8th issue. 4. As regards the lands other than those in respect of which Naba Krista had exclusive possession, the Plaintiff will be put in joint possession with the Defendants to the extent of his share. Costs will abide the result.