Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that adverse possession of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.33 to 41 over the suit land has been recorded in revenue record since jamabandi for 1990-91 as there is entry of ‘Naziaz Kabza’ in the revenue record and, therefore, plaintiffs and defendant Nos.33 to 41 are proved to have been in adverse possession of the suit land for more than 12 years before the filing of the suit and, therefore, they have become its owners by adverse possession. The contention appears to be very forceful and attractive on first blush, but the same is completely devoid of merit. Both the parties are cosharers in the joint land in suit. Plaintiffs have not even pleaded any overt act by plaintiffs and defendant Nos.33 to 41 to depict ouster of defendant Nos.1 to 32 cosharers. In the absence of ouster of the said cosharers, plaintiffs and defendant Nos.33 to 41 cannot be held to be in adverse possession of the joint land, also being cosharers therein. It has been held by Full Benches of this Court in the cases of Bhartu versus Ram Sarup, 1981 PLJ 204 and Ram Chander versus Bhim Singh and others, 2008(3) RCR (Civil) 685 that possession of one cosharer over joint land is deemed to be possession of all the
