D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal is by the defendants, against whom a decree of mandatory injunction has been granted by the two Courts below.

( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY, the appellants are members of a coparcenery. The respondent (plaintiffs) by registered sale deed dated 13/5/1981 (Ex. P/1) purchased from the appellant No. 1, Maharu, the alleged manager of the coparcenery, two acres of land out of khasra No. 5/1-k total area 7. 39 acres. The plaintiffs as purchasers claimed to have been placed in possession of the lands purchased by them. The cause of action for the suit was said to have been arisen because the defendants (i. e. appellants Nos. 2 to 4), under a claim that the property was an undivided coparcenery property, tried to take forcible possession of the lands from the plaintiffs/purchasers. The two Courts below held that the purchasers' possession can be protected by grant of a decree of mandatory injunction.

( 3 ) FOR the purpose of this second appeal facts which are not in dispute, and on which the findings of the two Courts are conclusive as binding, are that the suit lands form part of a joint coparcenery property consisting of the appellants as its members. The appellant No. 1, Maharu, could transfer only his undivided interest in the suit lands. There is concurrent finding of the two Courts below that the purchasers were placed in possession of two acres of land out of Khasra No. 5/1-k which was sold in their favour by the alienating coparcener, the appellant No. 1.

( 4 ) LEGAL question for decision in this second appeal is whether a purchaser of an undivided interest of a coparcenery is entitled to grant of mandatory injunction against the other members of the coparcenery to restrain them from joint possession and common enjoyment of the property alienated and what is the remedy in such a situation of the purchaser who has been placed in possession of a specific property by the alienating member of the coparcenery.

( 5 ) THE opinion expressed on the above question by the first appellate Court in para. 15 of its judgment is as under:-"reference to the property being ancestral or being proved it to be so, in my opinion, will not help the appellant/defendants to non-suit, the plaintiff in the instant proceedings. They may have separate remedy to secure appropriate relief with respect to joint possession or for that matter set aside the sale deed. But in no case their endeavour to forcibly dispossess the vendee can be appreciated. The plaintiff Dhansai is entitled to protect his right to be in possession for which relief of permanent injunction was the only remedy available. I, therefore, agree with the findings recorded by the learned Civil Judge and hold the judgment and decree passed by him. "

( 6 ) IN this second appeal the following substantial questions of law have been framed for decision:- (1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff had no right to remain in possession of the suit land and their remedy was to bring a suit for general partition? (2) Whether, otherwise also, the decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs is contrary to settled principles of law and requires modification? ( 7 ) THE contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, as members of the coparcenery, is that the plaintiffs, as purchasers of an undivided interest of a coparcener can have no larger rights than what the alienating member possessed and that right is only of joint possession and for seeking a partition of the family property. Learned counsel, therefore, urged that the purchaser who steps into the shoes of alienating member is only entitled to be placed in joint possession of the coparcenery property and seek general partition so as to claim in equity allotment of the alienated property to the share of his vendor, if that is possible. The purchaser in no case can, however, claim injunction restraining the non-alienating coparceners from common use and enjoyment of the joint f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document