JUDGMENT R.P. Gupta, J. 1. This second appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 12-12-94 passed by III Addl. Distt. Judge, Vidisha in Civil Appeal No. 250-A/91 (old No. 9-A/88) whereby the judgment and decree of civil judge, Class I, Kurwai Distt. Vidisha in Civil Suit No. 288-A/84, decided on 23-12-87 was partly decreed and it was dismissed in respect of specified survey numbers mentioned in 'amended schedule A' filed with the written statement which was jointly filed by Ghasitibai and Ramprasad respondents 1 and 2. The finding of the two Courts below was that out of the suit land these specified Khasra Nos. 191, 318, 319, 320, 157, 136, 536, 538, 543, 482 and 607 had been given to the defendant Ramprasad by the common ancestor, Govindi, who was grandfather of Ramprasad. Grandfather is referred to as 'Aaja' in this part of the country. 2. The undisputed geneology of parties is as under :- Govindi | _______________________________________________ | | Sukhlal Mardansingh | | ______________________________ Harlal(plaintiff) dead | | | | Lalsingh Ramprasad Kunji ___________________________________________________ (defendant) (defendant) | | | | | | Bhagoni Rameshsingh Ramkali Narayansingh Dead.He Ghasiti appellant Respondent Respondent -Respondent has willed in (defendant) (deleted share in from list of entire suit respondent) land to Ghasiti defendant in 1978 3. The plaintiff came up with the plea that the entire suit land was joint land of the parties in which successors of Mardansingh son of Govindi had half share and the plaintiffs were successors of Mardansingh while successors of Sukhlal son of Govindi had half share. The defendants were successors of Sukhlal and the land had come from the common ancestor Govindi. The total land is described measuring 22.807 hectares. A declaration was sought that plaintiffs were Bhumiswamis of half share of this land. 4. The defendants plea was only this much that khasra numbers specifically mentioned above in 'amended schedule A' had been given to Ramprasad by Govindi and the rest of the land was joint. It was not in dispute at the trial that the entire land descended from Govindi. The defendants plea was that when Ramprasad was of 10 years age, Govindi had given this land to Ramprasad under the guardianship of Sukhlal. 5. This plea was contested by the plaintiffs. The judgment of the trial Court turns only on oral evidence of Ramprasad, Mukhtiyar, Rahmankhan and Ghasitibai. The defendants plea was that when Ramprasad was of 10 years age, Govindi had given this land to Ramprasad under the guardianship of Sukhlal. 5. This plea was contested by the plaintiffs. The judgment of the trial Court turns only on oral evidence of Ramprasad, Mukhtiyar, Rahmankhan and Ghasitibai. The defendants had also pleaded that appellant had share in the land other than specified numbers (other than the number mentioned in amended Schedule A). A share was pleaded to have been willed away by Lalsingh in favour of Ghasitibai daughter of Ramprasad. Lalsingh was third son of Sukhlal who died issueless. 6. Ramprasad had said that land called Chakodhi, Adhakheda and Adhagarha had been given to him by his grandfather. The trial Court accepted this statement on the argument that the plaintiff did not rebut it in his evidence. 7. The appellate Court has accepted these reasonings of the trial Court although before the appellate Court copies of revenue records such as Kishtbandi Khatoni pertaining to period 1953, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958 (Exs. P-1 to P-6) and khasra panchsala Exs. P-7 to P-9 pertaining to the period 1978-79 to 1980-81 were produced. In all these documents the entire suit land was recorded as joint land and there is no separate possession shown in khasra numbers detailed in amended schedule A. It appears that even the appellate Court did not consider these documents as sufficient rebuttal to the oral evidence. 8. On seeing such a situation in the judgment, this Court has asked the counsel for the defendant as to how he supports the judgments. There is nothing on record to suggest that the so called fields Chakodhi, Adhakheda and Adhagarha referred to in the oral statement of Ramprasad, are the names of khasra numbers detailed in 'amended schedule A'. This is not borne out from the revenue records either. This revenue record was allowed by the appellate Court to be introduced in evidence as additional evidence by order under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C.. 9. The basic law about joint lands is that every co-sharer has share in every parcel of land to the extent of his specified share and no coparcener can claim exclusive rights in any parcel of land till partition. Further, possession of every co-owner on every parcel shall be deemed to be possession of all the co-owners. 9. The basic law about joint lands is that every co-sharer has share in every parcel of land to the extent of his specified share and no coparcener can claim exclusive rights in any parcel of land till partition. Further, possession of every co-owner on every parcel shall be deemed to be possession of all the co-owners. It gives no exclusive rights to the co-owner, in possession. 10. The above principles of law have been given a total go-bye, by both the Courts below. Their judgments and decrees are based on no evidence. The oral evidence produced is in so vague that it leads to no inference whatsoever regarding giving of any specified portion by Govindi to the defendant Ramprasad. The oral evidence of Ramprasad is useless as he claims that he was aged 10 years at the time of receiving the land. His statement is no more than hearsay. It is rebutted by the revenue records and also by the denial of plaintiff. It is further rebutted by assertions in the will Ex. D-1, produced by the defendants. This will is alleged to be executed by Lalsingh in favour of daughter of Ramprasad. In this will the recital is that in the entire land, Lalsingh had 1/6th share. This will is of the year 1978. That means according to Lalsingh there was no land allotted to Ramprasad by that time. This is produced by all the defendants. It is strange that the Courts below did not find any rebuttal in this to the assertions in the oral statement of Ramprasad that certain fields had been "given" by Govindi to Ramprasad. The word used in the pleadings is 'given'. It is never stated how it was 'given'. Was it a gift or sale or otherwise ? The findings of the trial Court and appellate Court are based on no evidence whatsoever and are in violation of the law about co-ownership. However, there had been one development during the hearing of the first appeal. The respondents 5, 6 and 7 who are brothers and sister of appellant Bhagoni Singh, entered into a compromise with the other defendants that they concede to the judgment of the trial Court and did not challenge the judgment. So that leaves us only with the share of Bhagoni Singh. 11. The respondents 5, 6 and 7 who are brothers and sister of appellant Bhagoni Singh, entered into a compromise with the other defendants that they concede to the judgment of the trial Court and did not challenge the judgment. So that leaves us only with the share of Bhagoni Singh. 11. Since the land specified in amended schedule A were not proved to have been given by Govindi to Ramprasad. Bhagoni Singh had obtained 1/8th share in these lands also by succession through his ancestors. He is bhumiswami of 1/8th share in entire suit land and entitled to have his share partitioned. The decree of the trial Court and appellate Court is amended to this extent in favour of Bhagoni Singh. 12. The amended decree shall be prepared. The respondents 1, 2 and 3 shall pay the costs of appellant Bhagoni Singh in this Court. This second appeal is accepted to this extent.