JUDGMENT 1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and confirmatory decree of Third Additional District Judge, Vidisha, dated 27th November, 1991 whereby the judgment and decree of the trial Court i.e. Second Civil Judge, Glass-II, Vidisha, dated 8.9.1986 was confirmed. The trial Court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit on 27th August, 1979. The plaintiff had purchased the suit land measuring 4 Bighas 7 Biswas (falling in four survey numbers) with certain specified areas out of every survey number. This land was allegedly purchased by the appellant/plaintiff from his father Martandrao and father's brother Purshottamrao. It was also alleged that the sold area is not more than the share of these vendors in the alleged survey numbers. Possession had been claimed by the appellant/plaintiff. A grievance was raised that the defendant/respondent was attempting to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and so the suit filed was for a declaration of ownership of the plaintiff in the lands as also for injunction against interference in the possession. However, by way of amendment apart from the claim of ownership a relief of possession of the lands was also claimed alongwith the prayer for damages at a particular rate. 3. The defendant's contest was that he had purchased that very area from Narharirao, another brother of Martandrao. This was by sale-deed dated 20th August, 1979 and that he was continuing in possession ever since. He asserted that there was a fake sale-deed got executed by the plaintiff from his father and uncle. It was asserted that the agreement to sell in favour of the defendant had been made by Narharirao as far back as 28.2.1978, in consequence of which sale-deed dated 20.8.1979 had been executed and got registered. In the written statement it has been asserted that there has been an oral partition between the co-owners and this area had fallen to the share of Narharirao. It was asserted that, in fact, there was a joint land consisting of 28 survey numbers measuring 20.330 hect. owned by Martandrao, Purshottamrao, Narharirao and Bhaskarrao and that there had been a partition between him and other co-sharer and he was in possession on his separated shares for the last 15 to 20 years. So no rights could be passed by the alleged vendors of the plaintiff to the plaintiff by the alleged sale-deed. owned by Martandrao, Purshottamrao, Narharirao and Bhaskarrao and that there had been a partition between him and other co-sharer and he was in possession on his separated shares for the last 15 to 20 years. So no rights could be passed by the alleged vendors of the plaintiff to the plaintiff by the alleged sale-deed. The defendant claimed that he had purchased 836 hect. of land which is equal to 4 bighas. 4. The suit had been tried on the following issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land under sale-deed dated 13.3.78 as owner? (ii) Whether the defendant tried to enter into possession of suit land on 12.7.79 and thus disturbed the possession of the plaintiff? (iii) Whether the suit is not properly valued for purposes of court fees and jurisdiction? (iv) Whether the suit is not entitled to proceed in the absence of possession? (v) Whether the defendant is entitled to special damages of Rs.1,000/- from plaintiff? (vi) Relief? Following additional issues were also framed: (vii) Whether the defendant entered into unauthorised possession of suit land on 22nd March, 1980? (viii) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages at the rate of Rs.500/- per year from the defendant? 5. On issue No.1 the trial Court returned a finding against the plaintiff holding that the sale-deed (Ex.P/1) in favour of plaintiff by his father Martandrao and uncle Purshottamrao was without consideration and so it is not established beyond doubt. The Court found that the consideration of Rs.1,000/- for the sale was totally inadequate. The trial Court observed that so long as there was no partition between the co-shares, none of the co-sharers, singly, can claim ownership on any pared of joint land and since no partition had been completed by the plaintiff, it could not be said that the vendors of the plaintiff sold this entire parcel of disputed land. Thus, it was held that the plaintiff had failed to prove his ownership on the disputed land. 6. On other issues the trial Court observed that they were unnecessary since Issue No.1 had not been established. Regarding Issue No.7 about possession the trial Court held that the defendant had entered in possession since before 6th September, 1979. So the suit was dismissed. 7. 6. On other issues the trial Court observed that they were unnecessary since Issue No.1 had not been established. Regarding Issue No.7 about possession the trial Court held that the defendant had entered in possession since before 6th September, 1979. So the suit was dismissed. 7. The first appellate Court observed that since there had been no partition of land between the co-shares, none of the co-sharers could transfer specified parcels of lands out of the joint land to anybody. So the claim of purchase of specified parcels of land by plaintiff from his father Martandrao and uncle Purshottamrao could not be sustained. The appellate Court proceeded on the application of principle that every co-sharer has a right to the extent of his share on every minute parcel of joint land and so no co-sharer could say that he was the owner of a particular area exclusively. The joint co-sharer could at the best claim partition to the extent of his share and then he would be owner exclusively on the parcel which falls to him on partition. On this reasoning alone the first appellate Court observed that finding of the trial Court on Issue No.1 regarding ownership and possession of suit land was being confirmed. No other discussion was made in the judgment of the first appellate Court and so the appeal was dismissed. The first appellate Court had also observed that specific portions of land had also not been properly described by the plaintiff in so far as in the claimed sale-deed (Ex.P/1) it had been described that a particular parcel of land fell in the north and south of the particular survey number or in the east and west of another survey number. Thus the appellate Court observed as improbable as no particular area could fall in the east as well as west or in the north as well as south unless there was an allegation of a particular dividing line which was not there. So the description of land was also rendered to be defective and untenable so far as the plaint was concerned. 8. This Second Appeal was admitted vide order dated 27th August, 1992, of this Court observing that substantial questions of law (as formulated) were involved. 9. So the description of land was also rendered to be defective and untenable so far as the plaint was concerned. 8. This Second Appeal was admitted vide order dated 27th August, 1992, of this Court observing that substantial questions of law (as formulated) were involved. 9. After perusing the record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties San a Shri N.K. Gupta for the appellant, Shri N.K. Jain for the respondent No.1 and Shri K.N. Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the State, this Court finds that there is one apparent error of law committed by the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court did not discuss whether the sale-deed (Ex.P/1) in favour of the plaintiff could be called not proved being without consideration or was ineffective for those reasons. Nor it was held that it was not executed by Martandrao and Purshottamrao. In fact, the trial Court also did not say so. This sale-deed is a registered sale-deed and Martandrao appearing as witness proved that he and Purshottamrao had executed it and got it registered and received consideration of Rs.1,000/-. The receipt of Rs.1,000/- is recited in the sale-deed. Other persons than vendors have no locus to raise the issue of lack of adequate consideration. So this sale-deed certainly passes on whatever rights, if any, the vendors had, to the vendee. Although this aspect was not discussed by the first appellate Court but it appears that the first appellate Court proceeded on the assumption that even if the sale-deed be effective it could not pass title as it was made by some of the co-sharers about joint land which had not been partitioned, in respect of specified parcels of land. 10. There can be no dispute with the principle that a co-sharer without partition of joint land cannot pass on full title to specified parcels of land to his tranferee. But if he purports to do so by a deed of transfer, what is the effect. The effect clearly is that in the parcel, recited in the sale-deed of the transferer, the transferee will get rights to the extent of joint share of the vendor and no less. This has been overlooked by the subordinating Courts. If the possession is passed, he may be entitled to protect the possession but if not, he gets the ownership to the extent of share of his transferor. 11. This has been overlooked by the subordinating Courts. If the possession is passed, he may be entitled to protect the possession but if not, he gets the ownership to the extent of share of his transferor. 11. The effect of applicability of this principle is not that the sale of particular parcel becomes meaningless or non-operative but it has a limited operation to the extent of ownership i.e. share of the transferor. 12. The case set up by the defendant in the written statement is that in these lands four persons had equal share viz., Martandrao, Purshottamrao, Narharirao and Bhaskarrao. This means the transferors Martandrao and Purshottamrao had 1/4th share each i.e. half share. If these two co-sharers transfer particular parcels of land by sale to a vendee whosoever he is, what the vendee will get will be their share in these parcels and not the entire ownership in those parcels of lands. 13. Applying this principle here, it becomes clear that the plaintiff could get only half share of these vendors in the sold areas. The observation of the first appellate Court the sold area was not properly delineated in the plaint or in any document nor so proved will not mean that the plaintiff remains without relief. Where there is a right, there is a remedy; is well recognised principle of equity jurisdiction of Courts of law. If he proves certain areas to have been purchased and parcels are not exactly delineated, the Court will mould the relief suitably. When a parcel of land is described as running from north to south it can have one effective meaning that it is a strip of land running from north to south and similarly can be said about strip of land running from east to west. So the only rational interpretation, applying the principles of right of co-sharers, will be that in an area of 4.7 bighas in the four survey numbers in dispute the vendors Martandrao and Purshottamrao legally transferred only their half share of the area, which means 2 Bighas 3.5 Biswas. The plaintiff is entitled to be declared that he has ownership by purchase from Martandrao and Purshottamrao, of 2 Bighas 3.5 Biaswas of land in the four disputed survey numbers. 14. The plaintiff is entitled to be declared that he has ownership by purchase from Martandrao and Purshottamrao, of 2 Bighas 3.5 Biaswas of land in the four disputed survey numbers. 14. As regards relief of possession, since the plaintiff claimed that they are not in possession and the defendant claimed to be in possession, it is sufficient to say that possession of one co-sharers is a possession of all the co-sharers and so no separate decree of even joint possession need be passed. The possession of the defendant will enure for possession of all the co-sharers including the plaintiffs/appellants. They can seek actual possession after seeking partition in a proper proceedings, wherein all questions of equities of co-sharers in the joint land can be raised and decided. 15. The net result is that the plaintiff is entitled to relief of declaration that he is the owner in joint possession of lands in the disputed four survey numbers to the extent of 2 Bighas 3.5 Biaswas area as vendee of Martandrao and Purshottamrao. He can seek relief of possession only by seeking partition as transferee of his transferors subject to all equities of all the co-sharers, in the joint lands. 16. No relief is pressed regarding damages or compensation. So the appeal is partly accepted to the above extent. The judgments and decree of the first appellate Court and the trial Court are reversed to that extent and the plaintiff's declared joint owner in possession to the extent 2 Bighas 3.5 Biswas of land m the disputed survey numbers. They can seek actual possession by seeking partition in proper proceedings subject to all equities of co-sharers m the joint lands.