Short Note : 1. Baldeo Prasad, who was admittedly a co-owner, brought a suit against Manikchand alleging that the latter was occupying the suit premises as licensee under a written agreement w. e. f. May 31, 1970 for four months. He had agreed to vacate the shop on September 30, 1970 but he did not do so, Baldeo Prasad, therefore, brought the suit for possession against Manikchand. He claimed to be the sole licensor and Manikchand as the sole licensee. The suit was resisted by Manikchand. During the pendency of the suit Fundilal, brother of Baldeo Prasad made an application for being joined as co-plaintiff. His contention was that since he and Baldeo Prasad together purchased the suit property, he was a necessary party. Trial Court rejected Fundilal's application. 2. Held : It is settled law that one of the co-owners can alone bring a suit for possession against another who is in wrongful possession. The present suit must be regarded as one on behalf of both the co-owners, i. e. including Fundilal, it cannot be said that Fundilal is a necessary or a proper party. Shivangoude Lingangouda v. Gangawwa Bassappa, AIR 1967 Maysore 143, Pilonani v. Anand Singh, 1960 JLJ 910 , Govind Jageshwar v. Kashirao and others, AIR 1927 Nag. 390, Hatunbi v. Bunnabi, 1972 JLJ SN 18, Ishaque Ahmed v. Ram Singh, 1976 MPLJ SN 48, Amrik Rai v. State of M.P. 1977 MPLJ SN 16, distinguished. Revision dismissed.