The Calcutta Weekly Notes Monday March 29 1943

It may safely be said without disrespect to any one that to give proper consideration to a succession of Full Bench references at a stretch and at the same sitting is bound to tax the capacity of any Bench to the extreme and it would not at all be a surprise if at times the intensity or accuracy of the examination flagged. [...] Where property is held in co-percenary or in co-ownership it is not necessary for all the co-parceners or cowners to join in a suit for ejectment of trespassers and a decree for the recovery of possession of the iintire property can be passed even when the suit is brought by only one of the sevral co-parceners or co-owners. [...] The priciple on which the rule is based is that the right of each co-parcener or co-owner etends to the whole property jointly with the other and the step taken to recover the prperty is for the obvious advantage of all the oo-parceners or co-owners. [...] One of several co-owners is etitled to recover from the trespasser the whole of the profits which are payable by the trespasser on account of his wrongful possession and the whole compensation paable on account of injury caused to the prperty. [...] Where after the death of the Plaintiff Apellant one of his heirs alone applied to the Court for substitution and for permision to continue the appeal and his appl;ation was granted: Held (ALLSOP and VERMA JJ.)—Th4t there was no abatement to the extent of the share of the other heirs and the appeal cot inued by the substituted Appellant must be held to be for the benefit of the entir