JAGDEO Vs. PRASAD AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Defendant's second appeal from the concurrent decisions of the courts below decreeing the Plaintiff Respondents suit for an injunction to restrain the Appellant from interfering with the former's right of joint possession of certain plots of land. The Plaintiffs alleged that they and the Defendant were in joint possession of the land in dispute but the latter had managed to obtain an entry in the revenue records that he was in exclusive possession and thereby denied the joint title of the Plaintiffs. The Appellant resisted the suit and denied that the Plaintiffs had any right or title to the land. He claimed that he had an exclusive title. Both the courts below disbelieved the Appellant's story and held that the Plaintiffs had established their title to the land and issued the injunction to restrain the Defendant from interfering with their possession. He has come to this Court in second appeal.

(2.) MR . K.M Sinha urged only one point in support of this appeal. He argued that the suit (or an injunction was incompetent as one co -sharer could not ask for an injunction against another co -sharer in joint possession, his proper remedy being a suit for partition. I do not agree. A joint co sharer cannot claim a right of possession over any specific portion of the property which is held jointly without tiling a suit for partition, but if his very status as a joint owner is denied by another co owner he has a right to prevent the latter from' interfering with his rights. Mr. Sinha cited two decisions in support of his argument, but neither of them applies to the present case. In Watson and Company v. Ramchand Dutt (1) (ILR 18 Cal. 10), the Privy Council held that where a co -sharer is in occupation of land held jointly with others but not in denial of the others' title, a suit for injunction is not a proper remedy. In the present case the Appellant denied the title of his co -sharer. In Mohammad Naziruddin v. Wajid Ali (2) (1940 AWR(CC) 89), the Oudh Chief Court held that where a person has been in possession of a piece of joint land for a long time without any let or hindrance by the other co -sharer, the latter has no right to eject him or his transferee or to disturb his possession or enjoyment otherwise than by seeking partition. In that case the Defendant had been permitted to occupy a portion of the land by the other co -sharer and the Court held that the latter could not upset the arrangement without filing a suit for partition. In the present case the Appellant got the revenue records changed without the consent or permission of the other co sharers. I think a suit for injunction was competent in such circumstances.