JUDGMENT

K.P. Singh, J. - Aggrieved by the order of the Civil judge, Meerut dated 28-5-1990 whereby injunction can be granted to the plaintiff-respondent, the defendant-appellants have approached this court through the above mentioned appeal.

2. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants the main grievance of the learned Counsel for the appellants before us is that the appellants are co-sharer in the disputed property and no injunction can be granted to the plaintiff-respondent against a co-owner. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, the impugned order is perverse and cannot be sustained it has also been emphasised that an the observation made in the impugned order, it is not very clear that the defendants land has been demarcated or the plaintiff land is identifiable on the spot.

3. After hearing Learned Counsel for the parties at some length, we are not satisfied that the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants are correct. The document of title in favour of the defendants-appellant has not been produced before us. On the finding recorded by the Civil Judge, the claim of the plaintiff appears to have been prima facie proved regarding the disputed land.