( 1 ) THIS revision petition arises out of an order made in the proceedings for resumption of land under S 14 (1) of the Mysore Land Reforms Act (shortly called the Act) ( 2 ) THE petitioner is a co-sharer having two annas share in the land r. S No. 234 which is in the possession of the respondent-tenant. He filed a statement under S. 14 of the Act for resumption of his share in the land. The Land Tribunal held that the petitioner without impleading the other co-sharers coud not resume his share and it further held that if the resumption was permitted, it would leave a fragment. The appeal preferred against this order was dismissed by the District Judge for the reason that the other co-sharers are necessary parties to the proceedings ( 3 ) THE sole question for consideration is whether one of the co-sharers can file a statement for resumption of his share without impleading the other co-sharers as parties to the proceedings. ( 4 ) S. 14 (1) provides that when a statement is filed, the Court shall, as soon as may be after giving an opportunity to be heard to the landlord and such of his tenants and other persons as may be affected and after making such enquiries as it deems necessary, determine the land or lands which the landlord is entitled to resume. Rule 7 of the Mysore land reforms Rules 1965 provides that the sttement for resumption of land under sub-sec. (1) of S 14 shall be in Form No. 1 and all persons who have an interest in the land to bo resumed, shall be made parties to it. ( 5 ) IN the instant case it is admitted that the petitioner is having only two annas share and his other brothers are the owners of fourteen annas share. Whether the shares are known or indeterminate and whether the shares are equal or uneaual, every co-owner has a right of enjoyment and possession equal to that of the other co-owners. Each in theory is interested in everv infinitesimal portion of the subject matter and each has the right irrespective of the quantity of his interest, to be in possession jointly with others. Each in theory is interested in everv infinitesimal portion of the subject matter and each has the right irrespective of the quantity of his interest, to be in possession jointly with others. A tenant holding land under several landlords at a lump rent and under one engagement is entitled to hold the some as one unit, until it is broken up and the rents are apportioned with the consent of all the parties concerned, namely, all the co-sharers and the tenant. Till then, a co-sharer landed is not ordinarily entitled to sue for his own share of the rent, the principle being it is a co-ordinate interest if that be the position, the other co-sharers of the land sought to be resumed are necessary parties to the proceedings as their interests are likely to be affected by the resumption to be allowed in favour of the petitioner. ( 6 ) THE above view of mine is supported by the decision in Rama mothi Bhai v. Dalvadi Tupoo Rama, AIR 1956 Bom. 364 . That was a case arising out of an application filed by one of the co-sharers under S. 34 of the Bombay tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, (Act 67 of 1948) to recover possession from a tenant for bona fide personal cultivation. While reiecting the application, Vyas J. , observed that where a landlord and certain other persons are co-sharers, then, the lardlord alone is not entitled to file the application under S. 34 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands act. As against, a trespasser, one co-owner on behalf of all the co-owners can maintain an action. But, if an action is to be filed against a tenant, then, all the co-owners must be joined in the proceedings. ( 7 ) THE view taken by the leained District Judge is correct on the materials before him and it docs no' fall for in+erferencc in this revision petition. The petition therefore fails and is dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .