ORDER

This miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is filed by the appellants-Plaintiffs being aggrieved of the order dated 02.11.2019 passed by the learned Third Additional District Judge, Seoni in RCSA No.189/2017 (Smt. Kusum Kanti Rai through Legal Heirs Vs. Vinod Singh and others), whereby learned Third Additional District Judge has though granted direction to maintain status quo in regard to other properties but, has refused to grant injunction in regard to Survey No.330/2 and 330/5.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs submits that plaintiff-Smt. Kusum Kanti Rai was the daughter of deceased Bhaiyalal and step daughter of deceased Leelawati.

3. Plaintiff's claim on the suit property is based on the basis of being daughter of Bhaiya Lal and Leelawati, whereas defendants are claiming their right over the suit property on the basis of 'Will'.

4. It is submitted that unless partition is carried out in regard to the said land, no order of injunction could have been granted in relation to Survey No.330/2 measuring 0.316 Hectares and Survey No.330/5 measuring 0.89 Hectares.

5. Reliance is placed on a decision of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in Ashok Kapoor Vs. Murtu Devi (CMPMO No.52 of 2014, decided o n 24.06.2015) where the respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and injunction restraining the petitioner-defendant from raising any sort of construction over the suit land comprised in Khasra No.877 and 878, Khatauni No.10 of Khata No.10, measuring 0-04-49 hect. and land measuring 0-02-85 hect., the High Court held that:-

''9. Property held in common, by two or more persons, whatever be its nature or origin, is said to be joint property and the owners thereof joint owners. Joint property envisages a community of interest (ownership) and a commonality of possession vested in the entire body of owners called co-sharers/joint owners. This body of owners is joint, both in possession and in ownership of the pr operty and every co-sharer shall be owner in possession of every inch of the joint estate. Inherent in his status as a co-

sharer/joint owner and flowing from his status as a joint owner or a co-sharer of the joint property is the right to assert ownership with respect to every part and parcel of the joint property. The status as a co-sharer would be preceded by a tangible act of conferring proprietary status, whether by way of membership of a co-

parcenary or by devolution of interest, pursuant to inheritance or by assignment of property by sale etc.

10. A co-sharer asserts joint title and possession even, where other co-sharers/joint owners are in separate possession of different parcels of land and as a natural consequences, a co-sharer in possession of a specific area of joint property possesses the property for and on behalf of all other co-sharers/joint owners. Co-sharers may and often do for the purpose of better management of the joint estate hold separate possession of parcels of joint land. This separation of possession, without a corresponding intent, to sever the joint status of the community of joint owners does not confer a right upon a co-sharer in separate possession to assert his separate ownership. A joint owner, therefore, would be owner of a specific share in the entire joint property but would not be entitled to claim separate ownership of any specific and particular portion of the joint property till such time, as the property remains joint.'' 6. Reliance is also placed on a decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior Bench in Angooribai Vs. Nishank Jain & others (Second Appeal No.3006/2018, decided on 23.07.2019), wherein it is held that if the property is joint, then none of the joint owners is entitled to any specific part of the property unless and until it is partitioned. Placing reliance on this judgment, it is submitted that it is well settled principle