A co-sharer of a joint property cannot maintain a suit for permanent injunction against other co-sharers to restrain them from interfering with her possession of a part of the property without claiming partition.

BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. :- This first appeal is at the instance of one of the defendants in a suit for injunction and is directed against the judgment and decree dated August 6, 2001 passed by the learned Judge, 2nd Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, in Title Suit No. 1462 of 1994 thereby passing a decree for permanent injunction restraining all the defendants, their men, agents and servants from disturbing or interfering with the possession and occupation of the plaintiff in three rooms in the first floor of the premises as mentioned in schedule 'A' to the plaint as well as the kitchen on the ground floor as mentioned in schedule 'B' to the plaint. The defendants were further injuncted from creating obstruction in plaintiff's occupation and enjoyment of 'A' and 'B' schedule property of the suit premises.

2. In the plaint, the plaintiff has claimed to be a co-sharer of 1 /35th share in a three-storied building situated at 62, Bidhan Sarani, Calcutta and according to her, she was in exclusive possession of the entire first floor of the said premises consisting of three rooms as well as kitchen and covered veranda on the ground floor.

3. It is alleged that she is widow of one of the sons of the original owner of the property and all her daughters are married and taking the advantage of her helpless situation, the defendant No. 1, her brother-in-law, was trying to create obstruction and disturb possession, as a result, in the past, the plaintiff had to approach the local Police Station. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction.

4. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing written statement thereby denying the material allegations made in the plaint. It was specifically denied that the plaintiff was in possession of the rooms as claimed in the plaint.

5. The learned Trial Judge on consideration of the materials on record came to the conclusion that the sisters-in-law of the plaintiff had no right to claim partition until the male heirs chose to divide their respective shares and as such, he found no reason why the plaintiff should be debarred from enjoying the entire first floor comprising of three rooms as mentioned in the plaint after taking into account the fact that the defendant No. 1, the brother-in-law of the plaintiff was occupying the entire second floor including some portion of the first floor.

6. Being dissatisfied, the defendant No. 1 has come up with the present appeal.

7. Mr. Sen, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has taken a pure question of law in support of this appeal. According to him, the suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable at the instance of a co-sharer having a very small share for restraining the other co-sharers from disturbing her possession, which is admittedly more than her share in the property. According to him, the appropriate remedy of the plaintiff lay by filing a suit for partition.

8. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, has, however, supported the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge and has contended that a co-sharer cannot create obstruction in possessing a part of the property and in such a situation, there was no wrong on the part of the learned Trial Judge in passing a decree for permanent injunction.

9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record we are of the view that if a co-sharer is dissatisfied with the joint possession of the parties in the joint properties, his remedy lies by filing a suit for partition. So long the partition is not effected, all the co-sharers have right in every part of the property and as such, one co-sharer cannot restrain the others from exercising their right over any part of the property without claiming partition thereof. We further find that the married sisters-in-law of the plaintiff had right of residence in the suit property, and therefore, the learned Trial Judge erred in law in holding that the five married