Judgment : This is a second appeal by the defendant no. 1 of the original suit against the decision of the Subordinate Judge, Krishnagar, Nadia in an appeal affirming the judgment and the decree of the Additional Court of the Munsif at Krishnanagar passed in favour of the respondent-plaintiffs. The appellant is Jagabandhu Nath. 2. The case of the plaintiffs Madhurilata Bakshi and others is that the suit land in C.S. plot no. 2148 measuring 1.72 acres was held by one Debu Ghosh as a utbandi tenant under the landlords now represented by the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants. Debu Ghosh abandoned the suit property leaving it to the khas possession of the said landlords. The plaintiffs and the proforma defendants were in khas possession of the suit land and got it cultivated by their bargadars and retained the land in their khas possession. During the recent revisional settlement operation, the suit land has been recorded in their names. Taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants, the defendant no. 1 being a man of desperate character without taking the permission of the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants forcibly started possessing the suit land, a part of the previous C. S. plot no. 2148 on and from 10th Baisak, 1359 B. S. This suit land measuring 1.42 acres has been recorded during the revisional settlement as in possession of the defendant no. 1 by force. The plaintiffs in this suit claim that the suit land belongs to them and their co-sharers, the proforma defendants and they have prayed for a decree for recovery of possession in favour of the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants by evicting the principal defendant no. 1 therefrom. It has been stated in the plaint that as the co-sharers other than the plaintiffs are living in different places, they have been impleaded as proforma defendants who may be transferred as co-plaintiffs, if desired. Besides recovery of possession of the suit land with declaration of title in favour of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants, the plaintiffs have claimed for damages for the unlawful possession, costs of the suit and other reliefs as would be thought proper. 3. The defendant no.1 has filed a written statement to oppose the plaintiff's case. Besides recovery of possession of the suit land with declaration of title in favour of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants, the plaintiffs have claimed for damages for the unlawful possession, costs of the suit and other reliefs as would be thought proper. 3. The defendant no.1 has filed a written statement to oppose the plaintiff's case. His case is that after the suit land came to be possessed by some of the plaintiffs and the predecessors of some of the plaintiffs after Debu's abandonment, the said landlords gave/settlement of the suit land to Torab Mondal and Goljan Mondal at a rental of Rs 3-7-6 pie per year and the said Torab and Goljan went on possessing as joint tenants till communal disturbances in the country. In 1356 B. S. they exchanged orally the suit land with Sadhucharan's land in East Pakistan and delivered possession of the suit land to Sadhu Charan. They also executed on 22.9.52 a power of attorney in favour of Sadhu Charan who transferred the suit land to the defendant no. 1 on 30.3.53 and since then the defendant no. 1 had been in possession of the land by paying rents to the plaintiffs till the date of vesting. According to the defendant the statement as to his possession described in R. S. Khatian as forcible is erroneous. 4. The learned Munsif discussed the evidence on record, both oral and documentary. He thoroughly discussed the question of possession and title of the parties. He disbelieved that Torab and Goljan had taken settlement of the land from the landlords or that they had ever possessed it. He found that the defendant no. 1 had no title to the land and that he illegally trespassed on the suit land in 1359 B. S. as alleged by the plaintiff and that he is a trespasser liable to be evicted. In the appeal preferred by the defendant, the appellate court below concurred with the finding of the trial court and affirmed its decision. 5. I have heard Mr. Banerjee appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Mitter for the plaintiff-respondents. 6. It has been first contended by Mr. Banerjee that the learned Subordinate Judge below erred in law by not inferring an adverse presumption against the plaintiff when the plaintiff signing the rent receipts have not been examined to deny the correctness of rent receipts. Banerjee appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Mitter for the plaintiff-respondents. 6. It has been first contended by Mr. Banerjee that the learned Subordinate Judge below erred in law by not inferring an adverse presumption against the plaintiff when the plaintiff signing the rent receipts have not been examined to deny the correctness of rent receipts. Both the courts below not only considered the oral evidence adduced on both sides but noticed the nature of rent receipts and both the courts held that the said rent receipts are not genuine. It has been found that there has been interpolations in rent receipts and they are not genuine. I find that the reasons shown by the courts below are very reasonable and as such non-examination of any of the plaintiffs or proforma defendants whose signatures appear in the rent receipts does not matter. 7. Next, it has been argued by Mr. Banerjee that there is no evidence that within twelve years immediately before the institution of the suit the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants were in possession of the suit so as to get a decree for recovery of possession. This contention I cannot accept. The evidence on the side of the plaintiffs is that they were in possession of the suit land in khas and for a period they employed Bargadar to cultivate the suit land and in 1359 BS the defendant no. 1 dispossessed the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants having no right or title to the land. The defendant's case of possession by Torab and Goljan or Sadhu Charan has been disbelieved by the courts below and the defendants' alleged purchase of the land was in 1359 BS when he took possession of the property. The courts below rightly according to evidence and circumstances held that in 1359 BS the defendant no. 1 dispossessed the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants who, there can be no doubt, possessed till the date of dispossession. The suit was filed within twelve years from such dispossession by the defendant. 8. Lastly, it has been urged from the side of the appellant that even if the plaintiffs have title to the suit land and are dispossessed within twelve years, they cannot get any decree for khas possession of the suit land since all the remaining co-sharers viz. the proforma defendants have not joined in the suit as plaintiffs. Mr. 8. Lastly, it has been urged from the side of the appellant that even if the plaintiffs have title to the suit land and are dispossessed within twelve years, they cannot get any decree for khas possession of the suit land since all the remaining co-sharers viz. the proforma defendants have not joined in the suit as plaintiffs. Mr. Banerjee's contention is that at best the plaintiffs are entitled to get a decree for joint possession with the defendant no. 1 to the extent of their share in the property. Mr. Mitter for the respondents on the other hand has argued that a co-sharer in an undivided property is entitled to possess the property, at least if not challenged by other co-sharers, every inch of it and as a whole for himself and on behalf of other co-sharers and such has a right to evict a trespasser in the property from every part of it and the whole. The learned Advocates of both the parties have relied on some decisions. I will however refer to some which, I think; I should mention. 9. The first case referred to is (1) Radha Prasad of others v. Esuf and others reported in ILR 7 Cal. 414. Here the plaintiffs brought the suit against a trespasser for recovery of possession to the extent of their share in the property impleading the remaining co-sharer as proforma defendants. The proforma defendants practically sided with the trespasser. It was held that the plaintiff could recover possession to the extent of their share jointly with the intruder. 10. The next case brought to my notice is (2) Currimbhay & Co. Ltd. v. LA Creet (ILR 57 Cal. 170). The view in this decision is that a co-sharer can bring an action in ejectment against a trespasser. There, however, no discussion has been made as to whether the plaintiff, only one of the co-sharers of the suit property can get a decree for khas possession in respect of the entire share or to the extent of his share or whether he is to get a decree for joint possession with the trespasser to the extent of his share. 11. Mr. Banerjee has relied much upon the decision of (3) Satis Chandra v. Abdul Haque appearing in 40 C.W.N. 81. 11. Mr. Banerjee has relied much upon the decision of (3) Satis Chandra v. Abdul Haque appearing in 40 C.W.N. 81. In this case some of the co-sharers of the suit property brought an action in ejectment against trespassers from the whole of the suit property. The first appellate court found that the plaintiffs had only 1/4th share in the property and that they could not get any decree beyond their shares. In the second appeal before this Court in Division Bench it was argued that the plaintiffs being co-sharers to the extent of four annas share were entitled to eject the defendants who were trespassers from the whole of the suit property. Several case laws were considered. It was held : "It two persons are joint owners and a third person holds the land with the express sanction and acquiescence of one of the co-sharers, he cannot be ejected from the whole of the land by the other cosharer. The latter can get a joint possession to the extent of his share." It has been further stated that the practice in this Court had been all along to give the cosharer a decree for joint possession with the trespasser so that the plaintiff may get his further relief in partition. In this case it does not appear that all the cosharer of the suit property were made parties to the suit as plaintiffs and defendants. I have also been referred to an unreported case of (4) Debendra Nath v. Santilata disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court presided over by P.N. Mookerjee J, on 6.4.70. In that case only one cosharer brought ejectment suit against a trespasser and it was held that he was entitled to joint possession according to his share with the trespasser. Other cosharers were not made parties to the suit. 12. Mr. Mitter on the other hand takes his stand on the Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court reported in (4) AIR 1970 Patna at page 1. In that case the decision was as follows : "...... ... Other cosharers were not made parties to the suit. 12. Mr. Mitter on the other hand takes his stand on the Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court reported in (4) AIR 1970 Patna at page 1. In that case the decision was as follows : "...... ... the decisions of this Court have generally proceeded upon the footing that a co-owner could institute a suit for recovery of possession of land held by him along with other persons against a trespasser who dispossessed all the co-owners and that he could obtain a decree for recovery of possession of the entire area, the judgment of the suit however, not affecting the rights of the other co-owners which would remain in tact". One of the reasons for upholding the decision will appear in the following quotation : "......... It is well settled that merely a possessory title when confronted with a better title will yield place to the better title which must prevail over a trespasser's possessory title pure and simple. A cosharer, having an interest in a property, jointly with others, is apparently a person with a better title than a trespasser. Following this principle there is no reason why his suit should not be decreed. It is relevant also to consider in this connection that it is a well settled principle of law that one of the various co-owners of a property, if in possession, will be deemed to be in possession on behalf of all the co-owners and it is for this reason that his possession, in law, therefore, is not regarded as adverse to other co-owners unless there is distinct proof of ouster. In that view of the matter also the interest of an undivided co-owner or co-sharer must be taken to cover every inch of land which may be the subject matter of dispute as belonging to the co-owner … … I have also considered some other decisions referred to by the learned Advocates but they do not formulate any new or note-worthy proposition of law in this respect. 13. The facts of the case before me under consideration are distinguishable and different from those appearing in the decisions brought to my notice. The facts proved in this case and or admitted are: (a) The plaintiffs, are some of the cosharers-owners of the suit land. 13. The facts of the case before me under consideration are distinguishable and different from those appearing in the decisions brought to my notice. The facts proved in this case and or admitted are: (a) The plaintiffs, are some of the cosharers-owners of the suit land. (b) All the co-sharers are made parties to the suit, some are plaintiffs and the rest are pro-forma defendants. (c) The plaintiffs through out the plaint have claimed recovery of possession of the suit land for themselves and for the proforma defendants, that is to say, for all the co-sharers. (d) The relief claimed is for the unrestricted interest of all the co-sharers. (e) The defendant as trespasser dispossessed all the co-sharers. (f) There is no conflict of interests between the plaintiffs and the pro-forma defendants. (g) The proforma defendants do neither, appear to oppose the plaintiffs' claim nor support the claim or the alleged title of the defendant. 14. The position of a co-sharer of a joint property, not divided or partitioned, is that he has a right to possess jointly with other co-sharers every part of the property equally, if there is no conflict of interest amongst the co-sharers, then any one may physically possess the property but in that case he would be possessing it on behalf of all the co sharers, practically as a trustee. In the present case all the co-sharers of the disputed land are made parties. The plaintiffs want recovery of khas possession of the suit property in favour of all the cosharers-the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants. The defendant has been proved to be a trespasser having no title. The suit has been brought within 12 years from dispossession. The remaining co-sharers are made proforma defendants having opportunity to oppose the plaintiffs or to support the defendants, but they raise no objection to the plaintiffs claim which in fact goes to their interest and do not encourage the defendant in any way. From the reading of the plaint it is quite clear that the suit was brought for the interest of both the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants but as the letter were not available at the time of institution of the suit on account of their Jiving at different places, the plaintiff added them as proforma defendants. The Courts below held that the decree as prayed for was necessary and justified. The Courts below held that the decree as prayed for was necessary and justified. The facts appearing in this case are not similar to any disclosed in the decisions cited before me. All the cosharers in the suit land are made parties. In this case no question arises as to whether the suit is maintainable by some co-sharers only for getting recovery of khas possession in respect of the entire suit land as all co-sharers are parties. Again no question arises as to whether or not the other cosharers save the plaintiffs would object to the plaintiffs' case or support the trespasser's case because the other co sharers neither object to plaintiffs' claim nor support the trespasser. Further by passing the decree prayed for no prejudice to any of the parties will arise on the grounds that the decree in question will benefit both the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants and that no harm would be done to the contesting defendant who has been found to be without right, title and interest in the land and liable to be evicted. Lastly, the decree passed will avoid unnecessary abuse of processes of Court and save the parties from protracted litigation besides the wastage of courts time and harassment to the parties in mind and money. Mere meaningless technicality in the process of dispensing justice, proper and substantial, is of no avail. In my view the facts and circumstances as also the principles on which the decree has been passed in this case are not in conflict with those appearing in any of the cases cited before me by the learned Advocates of the parties. The plaintiffs' case is maintainable and they are entitled to the decree a s prayed for. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs payable to the contesting respondents. Send dawn the records of the lower courts as early as possible.