The main legal point established is that a co-owner in actual possession is not automatically entitled to an injunction against another co-owner who is out of possession, especially in the absence of ouster.

1. The revision petitioner, who is a co-owner in respect of the plaint property, having failed to obtain an order of injunction before the District Judge, Kozhikode against the other co-owner respondent restraining him from entering upon the property has come up in revision challenging the order.

2. The disputed property belonged to one Narayani Amma and her son, who is the respondent herein, on tenancy right in equal half share. But, the respondent was staying away for some time and, therefore, the property was cultivated by Narayani Amma alone. The revision petitioner is the husband of Narayani Amma's grand-daughter. The revision petitioner and respondent along with Narayani Amma are living in one and the same house. While so Narayani Amma assigned her half right in the property in favour of the revision petitioner on 20-2-1963. The revision petitioner, thereafter, conducted paddy cultivation in the property. There is evidence that the revision petitioner has been in exclusive possession. But, when the respondent came and asked for joint cultivation with the revision petitioner, he was prevented from entering upon the property. Consequently, the revision petitioner filed the suit for a permanent injunction and also a petition for temporary injunction. The Munsiff allowed the injunction but when it came in appeal before the District Judge, the order of injunction was vacated and, the revision petitioner has, therefore, come to this court.

3. It is established beyond any dispute that the revision petitioner is in actual possession of the plaint property, not in his exclusive right, but as a co-owner of the property with the respondent. The respondent is entitled to half share in the property and the remaining half share only belongs to the revision petitioner. It is well-settled that a co-owner, who is in possession holds it for himself as well as on behalf of the other co-owner or co-owners if they are out of possession. There is no case of any ouster of the respondent. The question for consideration, therefore, is whether the revision petitioner is entitled to an injunction restraining the respondent from entering upon the property. On this question, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon two decisions, one reported in Avanihika & Another v. Sita Bai & others (1963 Kerala Law Journal 1164) and the other reported in Vasudeva Kurup v. Ammini Amma (1964 KLT. 468).

4. The decision in 1963 KLJ.1164 is that a co-owner in actual possession of property is entitled to remain in possession as against another co-owner, who is out of possession. That decision does not establish that a co-owner in actual possession is entitled to an injunction as against the other co-owner who is out of possession. In that case, the co-owner, who was out of possession, wanted a decree for actual possession. So, it was held that the co-owner in possession is entitled to remain in possession even as against another co-owner who is out of possession. That decision is, therefore, not applicable to this case.

5. The next decision in 1964 KLT. 468 also has no application to the facts of the present case. In that case, the property belonged to a tarwad. The wife and children of a deceased karanavan claimed to be in possession on the basis of a family karar which later was proved to b3 only a maintenance arrangement. However the wife and children of the deceased karanavan continued to be in possession of the property as against the tarwad. It was found ultimately that the wife and children had no right to be in possession as against the tarwad, who is the owner of the property and the suit was dismissed. But the observation in the above judgment was that a person in possession without title is entitled to remain in possession even as against the lawful owner until evicted in due course of law. The above proposition could only be an obiter as in a later decision reported in Nair Service Society Ltd. v. K. C. Alexander and others (AIR.