JUDGMENT Malik, CJ. - This is a Plaintiffs appeal. The Plaintiffs filed a suit for joint possession by removal of certain constructions on the ground that the land in suit belonged to the parties. It has been found by the lower courts that plots Nos. 27 and 28 are the joint plots belonging to the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. It had been further found that these two plots were in the exclusive possession of the Defendants and that the constructions will not in any affect the Plaintiff's rights. The finding recorded by the lower appellate Court is in these terms: The Plaintiffs never used the land in suit in any manner and so the constructions in suit do not interfere with any use of the land by the Plaintiffs and at the same time it is established that the land in suit has been in exclusive possession of the Defendants since a long time. 2. On this finding the lower appellate Court affirmed the decree passed by the trial Court dismissing the Plaintiff's suit with costs. In appeal learned Counsel for the Appellants challenged the finding of the lower appellate Court that the Defendants were is exclusive possession on the ground that Exhibit A-7 one of the documents relied upon, had not been proved. The finding was however, recorded without taking that document into consideration on the basis of the oral evidence and other evidence on the record, and after having recorded the finding that there was ''no room for doubt that the plots in dispute have really been in exclusive possession of the Defendants", the Court went on to discuss what had happened in the course of the partition proceedings and how the Defendants had claimed both the plots Nos. 27 and 28 as plots which were included in their house and how the appellate Court had ultimately accepted the claim put forward on behalf of the Defendants and given the two plots to them. It is, therefore, not necessary for me to consider whether learned Counsel's contention that Exhibit A-7 has not been duly proved is justified. The finding as I have already said, was recorded independently of this document and as a matter of fact of anything that had happened before the partition officers. 3. It is, therefore, not necessary for me to consider whether learned Counsel's contention that Exhibit A-7 has not been duly proved is justified. The finding as I have already said, was recorded independently of this document and as a matter of fact of anything that had happened before the partition officers. 3. The second point urged by learned Counsel is that even on the findings recorded by the lower Court that the plots belonged jointly to the parties and the Defendants were in exclusive possession thereof, the Defendants had no right to built pucca constructions which would change the character of the possession and amount to Plaintiffs' ouster. Reliance is placed by learned Counsel on a series of decisions of the Allahabad High Court and the Avadh Chief Court beginning from 1927. He has cited Sheo Harakh Upadhya and Others Vs. Jai Gobind Tewari and Others, AIR 1927 All 709 , Bir Ahir v. Bhagwant Prasad 1935 R.D. 450, Ram Naresh Singh v. Muneshwar Prasad Tewari 1935 A.W.R. 738, Musammat Jamilunnissa v. Sheikh Mohammad Zia 1937 A.W.R. 430, Radhey Lal v. Kunj Behari Lal, Maharaj 1939 O.W.N. 863, Amjad Ali Khan, Khan Bahadur v. Bismillahan, Mst. 1939 O.W.N. 911 and Ram Sewak v. Ram Sahai 1942 O.W.N. 281. The point came up for consideration before Bench of this Court. In S.C.A. No. 445 of 1945 Lala Sheo Nath and Ors. v. Lala Shiam Behari), of which I was a member, and these cases that have been cited by learned Counsel were placed before us in that case. We relied on certain observations made in these decisions that even where a plot of land was, in the exclusive possession of a co-sharer he was not entitled to so change the character of the possession as to effect a complete ouster of the other co-sharers and the nature of the possession should not be so altered that it could not be said that the other co-sharers had expressly or by necessary implication given the permission to the Defendant to remain in possession of the land and use it for the purpose for which the land was now being used. In the same case we had said that these cases were to be decided on a balance of convenience and the Courts had to see whether the act complained of was such that it was detrimental to the interest of the other co-sharers and something to which they had not already a acquiesced before. Another recent decision, from which some support can be derived for this view, though the facts of that case are different, is Bhgwan Sahai v. Ch. Mukund Lal (8) In that case it was held that it was open to a co-sharer to bring under cultivation a banjar land not in the exclusive possession of any other co-sharer so long as it did not, in any way, effect or damage the rights of the other co-sharers. To the same effect is the decision of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in Midnapur Zamindary Co. Ltd.v. Naresh Narayan Roy 51 I.A. 293 4. From the judgment of the trial Court as well as of the lower appellate Court appears that the plots in dispute Nos. 27 and 28, were part of the house of the Defendants and there were some old constructions on a part thereof, though the extent of those constructions was not clearly defined in either of the two judgments of the lower Courts, From the fact that the Defendants have put up some more constructions on that land, which was a part of their house, it cannot be argued that the nature of the possession is being so altered nor could it be said that the land was being put to a use for which it was not meant when the Defendants were allowed to remain in its exclusive possession by the other co-sharers. On the findings recorded by the lower Court that it would cause no inconvenience to the Plaintiff's and that the Defendants had been in exclusive possession of these plots and in view of the fact that these plots were more or less included in the house that had already existed from before, I am of opinion that the suit was rightly decided. 5. The appeal has no force and is dismissed, but I make no order as to costs.