K. KANNAN, J.

The substantial question of law that arise for consideration in this second appeal is as follows:-

Whether the plaintiffs could have been denied the relief of injunction for the only reason that they were coowners with the defendants, failing to note that plaintiffs' possession to the property was admitted to have been under an arrangement with the other coowners/ defendants?

The plaintiffs claimed possession to the property of about 260 kanals 10 marlas land out of 1077 kanals 10 marlas land held by several persons, including the plaintiffs and the defendants. The plaintiffs claimed that they were in exclusive possession of the property in dispute while the defendants being coowners were also in possession of some other portion of the property. The trial court granted a decree for injunction on the basis of the admission that the plaintiffs were in possession of the particular extent of the property. The appellate court denied the plaintiffs' right and dismissed their suit for injunction on a reasoning that a coowner in possession cannot maintain an action of injunction against other coowner. It is against this judgment that the second appeal has been filed.

T