JUDGMENT :

Nutan D. Sardessai, J.

1. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Advocate for the parties.

2. Admit.

3. Shri V. Braganza, learned Advocate waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3.

4. The appellants who are the plaintiffs before the Trial Court and aggrieved by the order dated 19/01/2018 passed by the learned Ad hoc Senior Civil Judge, Margao dismissing the injunction application are in appeal challenging the said order against the respondents who were the defendants before the Trial Court. The parties would be referred to as 'the plaintiffs' and 'the defendants' for brevity's sake hereinafter.

5. The plaintiffs carved a case that they were the co-owners of the property in question surveyed under No. 133/42 of village Nargarcem with the defendant No. 3 and one Eric pursuant to a Deed of Sale dated 09/01/1995 being the 'suit property' for brevity's sake hereinafter. The defendant No. 3 was the brother of the plaintiff No. 1 and permanently settled in Norway who with his friend Eric being the other co-owner and also a foreign citizen prevailed upon the plaintiffs to put the property to good use by running a business therein. The plaintiffs had appointed a caretaker to look after the property and a Power of Attorney were executed by the plaintiff No. 2 accordingly in favour of Constituted Attorney. The defendant No. 3 and the said Eric who were admittedly the co-owners with the plaintiff No. 1 had not exercised any co-ownership rights in respect of the suit property which was in possession of the plaintiff No. 1 as a co-owner. The Canacona Municipal Council had issued a license to the plaintiff No. 1 for running a restaurant in the house No. 116 located in the suit property and besides the Tourism Department had issued a registration for running of a hotel and moreover the Department of Excise had issued a license for the sale of IMFL and country liquor in favour of the plaintiff No. 2. These permissions were obtained after the two co-owners i.e. the defendant No. 3 and Eric gave no objection for the business being run by the plaintiff No. 1 through the plaintiff No. 2. The plaintiffs had been conducting the business in the suit property from the year 2000 without any interference from the other two co-owners. The defendant No. 3 on learning that the plaintiffs had made a profit for the first time in the tourist season of 2012-2013 tried to take over the restaurant by using bouncers and muscleman on 30/11/2003 along with the defendants and caused extensive damage to the hotel equipments. The defendant No. 3 was placed under arrest and released on bail who thereafter left the country in anticipation of the charge-sheet to be filed against him.

6. It was the plaintiffs' case that the defendant No. 3 and the other co-owner Eric were not entitled to disturb the plaintiffs from running the restaurant after being put in possession and they had all the licenses from all the statutory authorities to run the business therein. The plaintiffs further did not dispute the right of the other co-owners to partition the property who too could otherwise not disturb the plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment thereof which was not only of the co-owners but otherwise running the business with the permission of the co-owners. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 on 08/03/2014 taking advantage of the plaintiffs' absence from the suit property plucked 500 coconuts without having any right or interest in the suit property. They had no right to the running of the business and the trees located in the suit property and were not entitled to interfere with the plaintiffs' possession therein. The defendants No. 1 and 2 on questioning informed their caretaker that they had been authorised by the defendant No. 3 to take care of the property. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 again on 10/03/2014 tried to interfere with the functioning of the hotel by the plaintiffs and issued threats despite not having any right in the suit property. Hence