ROSHNI Vs. RAMBIR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE application for injunction by one co -owner against another was dismissed on the ground that the appropriate remedy for the plaintiff would be only to sue for partition and not for injunction against the co -owner. The injunction was sought on a plea that the defendant was attempting to put up construction in an area in excess of what he was entitled to and usurping the share of the property which the plaintiff was in possession of. Where one co -owner feels threatened by the act of yet another co -owner and the plaintiff's apprehension is that property respectively enjoyed for a convenience has now been abused by one co -owner, the appropriate remedy would at all times be only to sue for partition and if need be the further construction should be restrained by an interim application if he is able to show prima facie his entitlement to a share and also that the defendant's construction who is a co -sharer would infringe the extent of entitlement if a decree for partition is made and the property is divided and delivered by metes and bounds. The court was therefore justified in dismissing the application and I will find no reason to interfere. The plaintiff will have an appropriate remedy in a distinct suit for partition or if so advised, he could bring an amendment in the suit for relief of partition by bringing all the co -sharers as parties. The matter regarding his entitlement is merely an observation justifying how the order of the court below was not susceptible for interference and ought not to be taken as concluding the issue of actual entitlement. The civil revision is dismissed with the above observations.