RAM PRASAD TEWARI Vs. SANKOOR TEWARI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two connected appeals from the decree of the Additional Civil Judge of Ballia confirming that of the Munsif of Ballia issuing an injunction restraining the Appellants from interfering with the Plaintiff's possession over two groves. The Plaintiff alleged in each suit that he and the Defendants were the joint owners of the grove in dispute which had been planted by a common ancestor, but the Defendants were interfering with the Plaintiffs right of joint possession. According to the Plaintiffs, they had a half share in one grove only and a one third in the other, and they prayed for an injunction to restrain the Defendants from interfering with their rights. The Defendants resisted the suit and denied that the Plaintiffs had any right or title to the groves. Both the Courts below have found that the Plaintiffs had established their joint title to each grove and issued an injunction to restrain the Defendants from interfering with the Plaintiff's right. The Defendants have come to this Court in second appeal.

(2.) MR . J.N. Chatterji urged only one point in support of these appeals. He (Sic) that the Plaintiffs were not (Sic) an injunction against co -(Sic)d their proper remedy Was (Sic) suit for partition. This argu -(Sic)s no substance. A joint co -(Sic) co -owner can not claim the (Sic) possession over any particular (Sic) the joint property, but if he is (Sic) altogether and deprived from (Sic)ing even his joint rights, he is (Sic) to an injunction to restrain (Sic) ner joint owner from interfering (Sic)s rights. In this case the plain -(Sic)mitted that they were the joint (Sic) with the Defendants but com -(Sic) that the latter were preventing (Sic) from exercising their rights, (Sic)ore, their proper remedy was (Sic) for injunction. (Sic)No other point was urged. Both peals are dismissed.