JUDGMENT Piggott, J.
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for recovery of possession and damages, which has been decreed by both the Courts below. The parties are co-sharers in a certain mahal; lands appertaining to the said mahal are actually held in severalty as sir or khudkasht by all the co-sharers, including the defendants-appellants. The lands now in suit have been held in severalty by the plaintiffs-respondents at least from 1304 Fasli. The defendants-appellants interfered with the separate possession of the plaintiffs sometime in 1316 Fasli and in consequence of an adverse decision of the Criminal Court in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the plaintiffs had to admit their dispossession. I hold that as between co-sharers in a mahal in which lands are held in severalty by different co sharers, the Courts will protect each co-sharer, or group of co-sharers, in the peaceable enjoyment of such lands as they may actually be holding in severalty as their sir or khudkasht. If one co-sharer is worngfully ejected by other co-sharers, he is entitled to a decree for recovery of separate possession even apart from the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, which do not appear to have been pleaded in the present case. I do not think there is anything in this principle inconsistent with the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Bhairon Rai v. Saran Rai 26 A. 588. That decision would amount at most to no more than this, that if a single co-sharer forcibly and against the will of the others takes into his separate possession a portion of the lands appertaining to the mahal which have been hitherto held and enjoyed by all co-sharers in common, the Civil Court will give the other co sharers a decree for recovery of joint possession on their suing for the same. I do not think that ruling has any application to the facts of the present case, where the long continued exclusive possession of the plaintiffs over the plots of land now in dispute justifies an inference that these plots must have been occupied in severalty by the plaintiffs with the consent of the remaining co-sharers, and in order that by separate enjoyment of the same they might receive a portion of that share in the profits of the mahal as a whole which was due to them as co-sharers. I, accordingly, dismiss this appeal with costs including fees on the higher scale.