JUDGMENT : Piggott, J. The point raised by this Second Appeal is as to the precise form of the decree which ought to be passed when one of five joint owners of property sues in ejectment against a trespasser, making the remaining owners defendants on the ground that they would not join as plaintiffs. The lower appellate court has decreed the plaintiff's claim as brought. Although the appeal before me is simply on behalf of the defendant No. 1, who has been found to have been a trespasser. I have no doubt that I have jurisdiction under Order 41, rule 33 of the Civil Procedure Code to pass whatever decree ought to have been passed by the courts below. I do not consider that there ought to be a decree for joint possession. In the first place there might be some difficulty in executing that decree under Order 21, rule 35, clause (2) of the Civil Procedure Code. In any case the defendants Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, who refused to join in the suit and put in no appearance in the courts below, are not entitled to come in as decree-holders with the plaintiff under whatever sort of decree may be passed. 2. It has however been pressed upon me that the decree might advantageously be so modified as to make it clear that the plaintiff obtains possession thereunder on behalf of herself and her co-sharers, and not adversely to the latter. I think this course should be adopted, because it may save further litigation hereafter. I modify the decree of the lower appellate court by decreeing possession of the property in suit in favour of the plaintiff by ejectment of the defendant No. 1, the plaintiff's possession to be on her own behalf and on behalf of her co-sharers, defendants Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 to the extent of their shares. I leave the parties to bear their own costs of this appeal.