1. This regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff under the following circumstances:
According to the fard jamabandi, copy Exhibit P-2, the parties are joint owners of khasra No. 27/27 having an area of 19 kanals. The land is described as gair mumkin ihata chah, Rangawala well. Karam Singh, the contesting defendant-respondent No. 1, owns a half share in the land while the other half is owned by the others. The plaintiff-appellant has a 5/16th share in that other half.
2. The parties have so far been irrigating their land from a single persian wheel fitted on this well. The plaintiff-appellant now wants to have another persian wheel as, according to him, one wheel is not found sufficient to irrigate the fields of all the joint owners. Karam Singh resists the setting up of a second persian wheel on the well on the ground that more area out of the joint land would be required for the bullocks who have to work the second wheel. A co-sharer may claim only those rights in the joint land which can be exercised by other co-sharers similarly placed. An improvement in the joint holding can be brought about only with the agreement of all the co-sharers. If the owner of a 5/32nd share in the well wants to have an additional wheel for his own use, he should be prepared to concede the same right to the other co-sharers having the same interest. The owner of less than a 1/6th share can claim exercise a right to have a separate or an additional wheel only if it were possible for the co-sharers to have six or seven wheels to serve them separately. The appellant's offer to let the other co-sharers use the second wheel can go through only if the offer is acceptable to them. It is not open to the appellant to force anything on the other co-sharers, however good it may be in his opinion. The Courts below have rightly denied to the appellant the right to set up a second persian wheel on the well without the consent of the co-sharer who owns a much larger share than the appellant.
3. The appeal fails and is dismissed. Shri G.S. Grewal, the learned Counsel for the contesting respondent, does not press for any order as to costs incurred by his client in this Court.
4. Appeal dismissed.