J.N. SARMA, J. — Heard Mr. C.K. Sarma Baruah, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 9.6.97 passed by the learned District Judge, Tinsukia in Title Appeal No. 2 of 1996. By the impugned judgment the learned judge quashed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Tinsukia in Title Suit No. 38 of T990 and remanded the suit for retrial to the Trial Court. Hence the appeal. 3. Mr. Sarmah Baruah, learned counsel submits that both the grounds on which the appeal has been remanded are not tenable in law and as such the order of remand is liable to be quashed. He draws my attention to paragraph 6 of the judgment, which is quoted below :- "The suit land was purchased for consideration on the strength of Ex.2 sale deed by six persons and they are Smti. Padmini Mahanta, the plaintiff, Smti Dipali Gohain, Rabindra Das, Sona Mahanta, Kabir Alum and Pijush Bhowal, the proforma defendant Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 6. Even if the entire suit land passed on to them on the strength of said registered sale deed, the plaintiff has not acquired the right, title and interest in the entire land. Her share is only one-sixth. As such she is not entitled to get decree for the entire suit land. She has not been authorised to file the suit on behalf of the other beneficiaries, as no power of attorney has been executed in her favour by other purchasers. Therefore, a decree in respect of the shares of the suit land of proforma defendant No. 1, 2 and 4 to 6 is bad in law and inoperative." 4. It is the settled position of law that any co-sharer can file a suit for throwing out the trespasser from the land. In this particular case, the case stands on a more strong basis inasmuch as the other co-sharers have been made proforma-defendants No. 4 to 6. Two are left out no doubt. If any authority is required for the proposition of law, one may have a look at AIR 1970 Patna 1, Ram Niranjan Das and another Vs. In this particular case, the case stands on a more strong basis inasmuch as the other co-sharers have been made proforma-defendants No. 4 to 6. Two are left out no doubt. If any authority is required for the proposition of law, one may have a look at AIR 1970 Patna 1, Ram Niranjan Das and another Vs. Loknath Mandal and others wherein the Full Bench of Patna High Court pointed out as follows :- "A co-owner alone can institute a suit for recovery of possession of land held by him along with other persons against a trespasser who dispossessed all the co-owners, and can obtain a decree for recovery of possession of the entire area, the judgment of the suit, however, not affecting the rights of the other co-owners which would remain intact." In this case the defendants claim to be khatian holders. That will not save the situation. One of the co-owner is competent to institute suit for a ejecting the trespassers from the property, based on his right every owner of a property is entitled to institute a suit for the benefit of all the co-owners. That being the position of law, this finding of the learned Judge quoted above shall stand quashed. The suit is maintainable even in the absence or other co-owners. It is the proposition of law that the defendant is not entitled to raise a plea regarding court fee. Court fee is a revenue matter and it is always between the court and the plaintiff. The defendant cannot use it as a defence in the suit as he is not at all prejudiced by payment of court fee. The order of remand shall stand quashed. The matter now shall go back to the learned District Judge, Tinsukia to dispose of the appeal on merits. The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge on 30.1.2002 to receive further instruction.