A co-owner can seek injunction against another co-owner to prevent wrongful dispossession, contrary to the trial court's ruling that denied such relief.

JUDGMENT :-

Heard Sri M. Sree Rama Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.V.S.R. Subramanyam, learned Counsel representing Mrs. A. Varalakshmi, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 5.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in OS No.151 of 2018 on the file of Court of X Additional District Judge, Anakapalle. The respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein are the defendants in the said suit.

3. The suit was filed for partition of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff claimed 1/5th share in the plaint schedule property. The case of the defendants inter alia was that the plaintiff had relinquished his claim by relinquishment deed dated 16.07.2015 in "B" Schedule property of that relinquishment deed. The plaintiff's case was that even after such relinquishment, when in the partition amongst the co-owners (excluding the plaintiff) the plaint schedule property in OS No.151 of 2018 fell to the share of the father of the plaintiff late Rama Rao, on his death of (Rama Rao) the plaintiff will have 1/5th share in the plaint schedule property. The defendants' further case was that the plaintiff did not have 1/5th share but 1/25th share in the plaint schedule property.

4. The 2nd defendant filed the counter and inter alia objected the grant of temporary injunction. It was submitted that the said schedule property was ancestral properties of the defendants and the plaintiff. The plaintiff, however, wide registered relinquishment deed dated 07.06.1985 relinquished his rights over the said properties. It was also pleaded that the said 2nd defendant allowed the plaintiff to stay in the ground floor of Item-II of the plaint schedule property on mercy ground, alongwith the 2nd respondent and that was only a license to stay and consequently the plaintiff could not seek any injunction against the 2nd defendant the real owner.

5. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed adoption memo adopting the counter of the 2nd defendant-respondent.

6. In the suit the plaintiff-petitioner filed IA No.597 of 2018 for grant of temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from ground floor of Item No.II of the plaint schedule property, pending disposal of the suit or until further orders of the Trial Court.

7. The learned Trial Court rejected the application by Order dated 08.07.2019.

8. The appeal of the plaintiff-petitioner, CMA No.3 of 2019, has also been dismissed by the learned X Additional District Judge, Anakapalle vide judgment dated 12.04.2024.

9. Challenging the aforesaid orders, the present civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection, by the learned Courts below, is on the ground that the temporary injunction cannot be granted against the co-owner, unless the co-owner is causing damage or mis-appropriation of the property. He submits that once the Trial Court was satisfied that (i) the property belonged to late Rama Rao, on which there was no dispute and (ii) that even as per the case of the defendant-respondent, the plaintiff-petitioner was entitled to some share in the suit schedule property, the case for grant of temporary injunction was made out, to restrain the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff/petitioner from the plaint schedule property. He places reliance in J. Rajendran Pillai v. B. Bhasi and others , OP (C) No.2487 of 2019 of the High Court of Kerala.

11. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that in view of the re