JUDGMENT 1. This appeal arises out of a suit by the Plaintiffs to recover joint possession of a small plot of land which originally formed part of the bed of a tank. Some of the Defendants held a jote as tenants under the Plaintiffs and their co-sharers, and they encroached upon the land in dispute in 1306, B. S., and it is found that they did so notwithstanding the protests of the owners. The Plaintiffs are the owners of 15 as. 17 gundas and 3 3/4 krantis share. The Defendant No. 1 in 1312 acquired a very small share (2 gs. and kt.) of the taluk to which the disputed land appertains. He did not deny the title of the Plaintiffs in the present suit but pleaded that he has been in occupation of the land only since his purchase of the share of the taluk and that as he is a co sharer the Plaintiffs cannot obtain ijmali possession. Both the Courts below have found that the Defendant No. 1 did not come into possession of the land for the first time since he became co-owner as pleaded by him but that he and the other Defendants had encroached upon the lands long before he became a co-owner, and decreed the suit. The Defendant No. 1 has appealed to this Court. Upon the findings arrived at it must be held that the Defendants were holding the lands as trespassers until the Defendant No. 1 purchased the share of the taluk in 1312. They were in possession for only 6 years before 1312 and therefore could not have acquired the right of a tenant by prescription. Nor could they force themselves upon the landlord as tenants against the wishes of the landlords. The Defendants do not claim the land as tenants. Their possession at its inception was wrongful, and having regard to the finding that they took possession not withstanding the protests on the part of the owners, their possession must be taken to have been in denial of the title of the owners. The question is whether under these circumstances the Defendant No. 1 can resist joint possession on the part of the Plaintiffs merely because he has now acquired a small share in the taluk. The learned pleader for the Appellant has contended on the authority of the case of Watson & Co. The question is whether under these circumstances the Defendant No. 1 can resist joint possession on the part of the Plaintiffs merely because he has now acquired a small share in the taluk. The learned pleader for the Appellant has contended on the authority of the case of Watson & Co. v. Ram Chund Dutt I. L. R. 18 Cal. 10 (1890), that as he is a co-sharer in occupation of the land without denial of the Plaintiff's title, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to joint possession: We think, however, that, that case is distinguishable from the present case. In that case Watson & Co. were in rightful possession of the lands as tenants under leases from all the co-owners. After the expiry of the leases granted by some of the co-owners (the Plaintiffs in that case) they went on cultivating indigo on the khas lands as they had been doing during the continuance of all the leases. The Plaintiffs who were co-owners gave notice and attempted to enter upon the land to carry on operations inconsistent with the work already being carried on by Messrs. Watson & Co., and were resisted and prevented by them from such attempted entry. It was held by their Lordships of the Privy Council that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to a decree for joint possession or for injunction because the resistance was made by the co-sharer in occupation simply with the object of protecting himself in the profitable enjoyment of the land in good husbandry and not in denial of the other's title." They also held that "where land was held in common between the parties and on of them was in the act of cultivating a part of the land, which was not actually used by the other, it would not be consistent with the rule of justice; equity and good conscience to restrain the former from proceeding with his proper cultivation." 2. In the present case there was no peaceful taking of possession by a co-sharer. The Defendants took wrongful possession as trespassers notwithstanding the protests of the Plaintiffs and their co-sharers, and want to retain it because the Defendant No. 1 has subsequently become a co-sharer. The Plaintiffs could undoubtedly have turned out the Defendants from the land had the suit been brought before the Defendant No. 1 became a co-owner. The Defendants took wrongful possession as trespassers notwithstanding the protests of the Plaintiffs and their co-sharers, and want to retain it because the Defendant No. 1 has subsequently become a co-sharer. The Plaintiffs could undoubtedly have turned out the Defendants from the land had the suit been brought before the Defendant No. 1 became a co-owner. Under the circumstances would it be consistent with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience to allow the Defendants to keep the Plaintiffs out of joint possession ? We think not. Had the Defendant No. 1 taken possession of the land peacefully after he had become a co-sharer as pleaded by him the case would have fallen within the principle of the case of Watson & Co. v. Ram Chund Dutt I. L. R. 18 Cal. 10 (1890). As it is, we are unable to hold that the decrees of the Courts below awarding joint possession to the Plaintiffs are wrong and we accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs.