JUDGMENT S.S. Dhavan, J. - These are two connected appeals from the decree of the Additional Civil Judge of Ballia confirming that of the Munsif of Ballia issuing an injunction restraining the Appellants from interfering with the Plaintiff's possession over two groves. The Plaintiff alleged in each suit that he and the Defendants were the joint owners of the grove in dispute which had been planted by a common ancestor, but the Defendants were interfering with the Plaintiffs right of joint possession. According to the Plaintiffs, they had a half share in one grove only and a one third in the other, and they prayed for an injunction to restrain the Defendants from interfering with their rights. The Defendants resisted the suit and denied that the Plaintiffs had any right or title to the groves. Both the Courts below have found that the Plaintiffs had established their joint title to each grove and issued an injunction to restrain the Defendants from interfering with the Plaintiff's right. The Defendants have come to this Court in second appeal. 2. Mr. J.N. Chatterji urged only one point in support of these appeals. He Contended that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to an injunction against co-Contended their proper remedy Was to file suit for partition. This arguments no substance. A joint co-Sharer co-owner can not claim the right of possession over any particular over the joint property, but if he is ousted altogether and deprived from exercising even his joint rights, he is entitled to an injunction to restrain the other joint owner from interfering hiss rights. In this case the plain-admitted that they were the joint plained with the Defendants but complained that the latter were preventing them from exercising their rights, Therfore, their proper remedy was Their for injunction. 3. No other point was urged. Both peals are dismissed.