JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, M. - This second appeal has been filed under Section 331 (4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the decree and judgment of the Addl. Commissioner, Garhwal Division, dated 18.12.84 passed in first appeal No. 21 of 1983-84 against the decree and judgment of Asstt. Collector, Kharhasu, District Pauri dated 29.6.1984 passed in suit No. 9 of 1982-83 under Sections 229-B/209 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. Balan Singh filed a suit in the Trial Court under Sections 229-B/209 of the U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 that he purchased 1/2 Nali land in plot No. 37 of village Roupabadi Laga Aasuipatti Poorvi Mainyarsu, district Garhwal from Shanker Lal and Dalbirlal on 22.9.1969 and got the possession. But when he was cultivating the land Kanthi Singh had become annoyed and tried to encroach upon plot No. 204. Kanthi Singh also quarrelled on the spot, hence the proceeding under Section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code was lodged. That proceeding decided in favour of Kanthi Singh, hence he prayed that he should be declared bhumidhar of plot No. 204 area 1 Nali 10 Mutthi and Kanthi Singh should be ejected from that plot. He should be awarded damages of Rs. 300/- also. He pleaded that plaintiff, has not purchased plot No. 204 from Shanker Lal. Plot No. 204 is in front of his house. He got the disputed plot from Patiram son of Narendra Dayal, as such he is in possession over the disputed plot. The plaintiff has no right and title over this plot, therefore, he is also not entitled to eject him. He is inadverse possession, therefore, his right should also be determined. The trial court passed the decree that Kanthi Singh has no right and title over plot No. 204. He also ordered that plaintiff should file a suit for partition under Section 176 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. Meaning thereby that the trial court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Then he filed the appeal. The learned Addl. Commissioner has held that appellant plaintiff is recorded as a co-tenant in the Joint Khata of so many plots including the disputed plots, therefore, there is no question of declaration of his title. He is already co-tenant in the khata. Then he filed the appeal. The learned Addl. Commissioner has held that appellant plaintiff is recorded as a co-tenant in the Joint Khata of so many plots including the disputed plots, therefore, there is no question of declaration of his title. He is already co-tenant in the khata. Therefore, he should file the suit for partition first of all then he can claim exclusive right and title over the plot in dispute and can be entitle for ejectment. Meaning thereby he also dismissed the appeal, but he held the right and title of the appellant, hence this second appeal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 4. It is admitted fact of the parties that, the appellants are co-tenants of the disputed plot along with other respondents No. 2 to 37, except respondent No. 3. The finding recorded by both the courts below proved the possession of the respondent first Kanthi Singh. A copy of the sale-deed through which plaintiff-appellant got the right and title in the Khata in which the disputed plot is included shows that 37 Nali land was in all sold out by Shanker Lal. Now the question remains how much area he has in his share in the disputed plot cannot be determined. One of the other co-tenant has permitted the respondent Kanthi Singh to cultivate the disputed plots. The right and title of Kanthi Singh will be determined on the basis of the right and title which Patiram has given to him. If Patiram admits Kanthi Singh he admits in his own right. Therefore, Kanthi Singh cannot be ejected unless the right and title between Ratiram and Kanthi Singh is decided. In these circumstances of the case it is necessary the holding should be divided. If the disputed holding comes in the lot of appellant then he can file the suit for ejectment of Kanthi Singh. If the disputed plot come in the lot of Patiram or any other co-tenant then they had right to eject him. In these circumstances of the case I think the decree and judgment passed by both the courts below are in accordance with law and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that any co-tenant has a right to eject any trespasser but Kanthi Singh is not a trespasser. In these circumstances of the case I think the decree and judgment passed by both the courts below are in accordance with law and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that any co-tenant has a right to eject any trespasser but Kanthi Singh is not a trespasser. He is claiming possession over the disputed plots through one of the co-tenant. Unless that co-tenant joins the suit for ejectment it will be unnatural and against the natural justice to eject the respondent because he is not denying the right and title of all co-tenants. Hence there is no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent also argued that the co-tenant Shanker Lal could not have a right to transfer specific area in the Khata. He can only transfer his share. He also argued that the possession of the respondent Kanthi Singh is permissive possession, therefore, he cannot eject under Section 209 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 7. There is force in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent. If the appellant which has been transferred by Shanker Lal in his total area then the name of Shanker Lal will be replaced by the appellant in his place. If Shanker Lal has not transferred his whole area then he will be also co-tenant along with plaintiff-appellant and other co-tenants. The person who is in possession over the plot on the basis of permission cannot be ejected in a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 in view of the law laid down in 1984 R.D. page 161. 8. In these circumstances of the case the present suit as it was filed has been rightly dismissed by both the courts below. Therefore, there is no force in this second appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.