JUDGMENT M.C. Ghose, J. - These are two petitions under sec. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act by the Defendants. Both the Defendants are co-sharer landlords who purchased the occupancy right of a raiyat and under sec. 22 (2) have been sued by other co-sharers for a fair and equitable sum for the use and occupation for the same. Many grounds were taken in the petitions but the main argument of the learned Advocate for the Petitioners is that the Court below committed an error in allowing the Plaintiff compensation for a period of six years. It is urged that the Court below committed an error in thinking that Art. 120 of the Limitation Act applies. In an unreported case decided by Mr. Justice C. C. Ghose on 20th March, 1928, being Civil Rule No. 1354 of 1927, it was held that there are two articles in the Limitation Act which are applicable, viz-. Arts. 62 and 115, that in any view of the matter, the Plaintiff cannot recover for use and occupation for more than a period of three years. In that case apparently, the case of Robert Watson & Co. v. Ram Chand Dutt I. L. R. 23 Cal. 799: s. c. 1 C. W. N. 174 (1896) was not brought to the notice of Mr. Justice C. C. Ghose. In that case where some of the joint tenants of certain lands took the use and occupation of part of the joint lands to the exclusion of other joint tenants who afterwards brought a suit for compensation for such use and occupation, it was held that the period of limitation for such a suit was governed by Art. 120 of the Limitation Act. In the judgment, the applicability of sec. 115 was considered. It was held: " We are unable to see how there could be any contract of the kind having regard to the position occupied by the two parties." It is also urged by the learned Advocate for the Opposite Party that the wording of the present Sec. 22 (2), specially the words " a fair and equitable sum for the use and occupation of the same," were taken from the principle of the decision in the case of Watson v. Ram Chand Dutt I. L. R. 18 Cal. 10 (1890). 2. 10 (1890). 2. It was urged for the Petitioners that the facts of the case [Beni Madhub Mohapatra v. Sourendra Mohun Tagore I. L. R. 23 Cal. 795 (1896)] were different from the facts of the present case. There certain joint tenants were in occupation of certain lands in exclusion of their joint co-sharers whereas here the Petitioners have obtained legal right to certain lands to the exclusion of their co-sharers. In effect, the positions are similar. In that case, the Defendants occupied so much of the common land of the parties and were held liable to pay a fair sum for the use and occupation of their co-sharers. In the present case, the co-sharer has purchased the occupancy right of a raiyat and holds it to the exclusion of the other co-sharers and therefore under sec. 22 (2) is liable to pay the said co-sharer a fair and equitable sum for the use and occupation of the land. In accordance with the principle in Robert Watson & Co. v. Ram Chand Dutt I. L. R. 23 Cal. 799: s. c. 1C. W. N. 174 (1896), I am of opinion that the Court below was correct in holding that Art. 120 of the Limitation Act applies and the suits have been rightly decreed for a period of six years. The Rules are discharged with costs, hearing-fee, one gold mohur in each case.