JUDGMENT Chandra Prakash, J. This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree dated February 25, 1966 of Shri R.M.R. Khanna, Additional Civil Judge, Gorakhpur, allowing the plaintiffrespondent's appeal after modifying the decree of the trial Court. The dispute between the parties related to the land shown by the letters A N O P on the sketch map given at the foot of the plaint. This land is a portion of a larger land denoted by the words A B C D. One Shyam Lal was the brother of the plaintiffrespondent. The defendantappellant filed suit No. 222 of 1960 against Shyam Lal aforesaid for possession of the disputed land A N O P in this case on the ground that it was the defendantappellant's sahan and Shyam Lal was a trespasser. That suit was decreed notwithstanding the contest of Shyam Lal. The suit giving rise to this appeal was filed by the plaintiffrespondent against the defendantappellant on the allegation that the plaintiff and his brothers Shyam Lal and Baldeo were the joint owners of the land denoted by letters A B C D at the foot of the plaint and by a private partition the land A N O P came to the exclusive share of the plaintiff. It was alleged that the decree obtained by the defendantappellant against Shyam Lal is vitiated by the fact that it was collusive and obtained by fraud. On the above allegations the plaintiffrespondent wanted exclusive possession of the disputed land after cancellation of the decree in suit No. 222 of 1960. The trial Court after taking evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that the plaintiff and his brothers Shyam Lal and Baldeo were the joint owners of the land A B C D. It repelled the plaintiff's case that there was a private partition between the brothers and by virtue of the partition the land in dispute, viz., denoted by letters A N O P, came to the exclusive share of the plaintiff. It was also held that the plaintiff was no party to the decree in suit No. 222 of 1960 and as such it is not binding on him. On the above findings the trial Court refused to cancel the decree in the previous suit and dismissed the plaintiff's claim for exclusive possession also. It was also held that the plaintiff was no party to the decree in suit No. 222 of 1960 and as such it is not binding on him. On the above findings the trial Court refused to cancel the decree in the previous suit and dismissed the plaintiff's claim for exclusive possession also. Against the above judgment and decree the plaintiffrespondent filed an appeal in the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court after reassessing the evidence on record confirmed the finding of the trial Court that the partition set up by the plaintiffrespondent has riot been proved. But it came to the conclusion that the plaintiffrespondent was not bound by the decree in the previous suit and since he was a cosharer along with his brothers it decreed the plaintiff's suit for possession. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has come up before me in second appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the record. After giving the matter my anxious consideration I have come to the conclusion that the decree passed by the lower appellate Court has to be modified. The suit No. 222 of 1960 was between the defendantappellant and Shyam Lal, admittedly one of the cosharers in the disputed land, and he lost that suit to the defendantappellant. Shyam Lal cannot go behind the decree. His rights as cosharer to whatever extent they may have now been acquired by the defendantappellant. Since the plaintiffrespondent is not the exclusive owner of the disputed property and he has a share only he can get only joint possession along with other cosharers. I have already held above that as a result of suit No. 222 of 1960 defendantappellant had stepped into the footsteps of Shyam Lal, the own brother of the plaintiffrespondent, and as such he became a cosharer along with the plaintiff in the disputed land. In this view of the matter it was wrong on the part of the lower appellate Court to pass a decree for exclusive possession. That the Court should have done was to pass a decree for joint possession only. The appeal is partly allowed and the decree of the lower appellate Court is modified to this extent that the plaintiff will get joint possession of the disputed land along with the defendantappellant. That the Court should have done was to pass a decree for joint possession only. The appeal is partly allowed and the decree of the lower appellate Court is modified to this extent that the plaintiff will get joint possession of the disputed land along with the defendantappellant. Since the parties have succeeded in part the parties will bear their own costs throughout.