1. The case set up by the plaintiff in his plaint is a right to exclusive possession of the property leased to him by Kottappa's widow, viz., one half of the family property.
2. The findings are that the 1st defendant was not divided from his family, and consequently, as against him, the plaintiff was, of course, not entitled to exclusive possession of any portion of the family property.
3. On appeal to us this is conceded, but it is now contended that the first defendant being merely entitled to joint possession with the plaintiff of the family property, he was not entitled to oust the plaintiff, and it was argued that the plaintiff was entitled to damages on the footing that as regards one-third of the family property, the ousting of the plaintiff by the 1st defendant was wrongful.
4. We agree with Mr. T.V. Seshagiri Aiyar that the plaintiff is entitled to the same right as the deceased Kottappa would have had if he had been alive, but Mr. Seshagiri Aiyar has cited no authority to support his proposition that although the plaintiff claimed exclusive possession of a specific portion of the family property as against a member of a family from whom he was undivided, he was, if ousted from his exclusive possession, entitled to receive damages on the footing that the ousting was wrongful as regards his interest in the property as an undivided member of the family.
5. However, as we have pointed out, this was not the plaintiff's case.
6. We think the Munsif was right, and we accordingly set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court and restore that of the Munsif with costs here and in the lower appellate Court.