Sadasiva Aiyar, J.
1. The plaintiff (appellant) as purchaser in Court auction of 13 Charanams in a suit, to which some of the tenants in common of 150 Charanams of lands including these 13 Charanams were parties sued to obtain exclusive possession of the said 13 Charanams out of the 150 Charanams on the allegation that the said 13 Charanams were in exclusive possession of his Judgment-debtors, and that the principal defendants Nos. 1 to 10 had no rights therein. The findings of fact are that, though the 150 Charanams belonged in common to defendants Nos. 1 to 10 and to the plaintiff's Judgment-debtors, the plaint 13 Charanams had been peaceably enjoyed by the defendants Nos. 1 to 10 alone all along for more than 15 years. On this finding, the suit for exclusive possession was dismissed.
2. It is urged in Second appeal that the plaintiff is entitled at least to joint possession with defendants Nos. 1 to 10 of the said 13 Charanams of lands with defendants Nos. 1 to 10. I think that the ruling in the well-known case of Watson and Company v. Rambhund Dutt and Ors. ILR (1890) C. 10, establishes that a decree for joint possession ought not to be passed in such cases in favor of tenants in common who never had actual possession. The case of Naranithai Vaghjibhai v. Ramchod Premchand and Anr. ILR (1901) B. 141, quoted by the appellant's learned Counsel was the case of a Hindu co-parcener who was kept out from the joint possession of the family property, to which possession he was entitled by Hindu Law, owing to a stranger having been put into exclusive possession by other members of the co-parcenery.
3. The weight of the Privy Council decision in Watson & Co. v. Ramachandra Dutt ILR (1890) C. 10, which applies to the rights of tenants in common cannot be affected by the decision in Narani Bhai Vagibai v. Ramchod Premchand ILR (1901) B. 141, which refers to the rights of a Hindu co-parcener in a Joint Hindu family.
4. The Second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
5. I have a certain amount of doubt in my mind whether the principle referred to in Watson & Go. v. Ramachandra Dutt I.L.R. (1890) C. 10. on which my learned brother bases his judgment, is applicable in every case when the plaintiff is a purchaser from some out of several tenants-in-common and prays to be given joint possession of a specific portion of lands belonging to all the tenants-in-common, and whether such a plaintiff must necessarily be referred to a partition suit. In the circumstances of this case, however, I am not prepared to dissent from my learned brother.