S. B. MAJMUDAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS second appeal is preferred by original defendants_ Nos. 1 2 and 3 of Regular Civil Suit No. 17 of 1968 filed by Respondent plaintiff No. I in the court of learned Joint civil Judge Junior Division Nadiad. The learned Trial Judge has decreed the suit of Respondent No. 1 plaintiff by issuing a permanent injunction against the concerned defendants to the effect that they should not themselves or through others obstruct the plaintiffs Cart road and disputed way from Chaklasi road to the northern boundary of Survey No. 47/1 Karba and finally through cart road in the boundary of Survey No. 49 adjoining the Kharba whole going with carts bullock and plough. That decree of the Trial Court was confirmed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge of Kaira at Nadiad in Regular Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1974 and that has resulted in the present second appeal at the instance of the aforesaid defendants. ( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the controversy between the parties it is necessary to have a look at the relevant facts leading to this litigation. Respondent No. 1 as plaintiff in the trial court contended that he is the owner of Survey No. 49 situated in the sin of village Salun Taluka Nadiad of Kaira district The original defendant No. 1 who died pending the suit and who is represented by his heirs and legal representatives in to 1 was the owner of Survey No. 46/6 while according to the plaintiff Survey No. 46/5 is of joint ownership of the plaintiff and the slid defendants. On the said joint ownership Kharba land a well of joint ownership is situated. The plaintiffs case is that he is the joint owner with the aforesaid defendants so far as Survey No. 46/5 is concerned. He contended that for approaching his agricultural land Survey No. 49 from village Salun he had to go first to Chaklasiwali Nal and had then to pass from the northern Shedha of Survey No. 47/1 and Survey No. 47/2 which belong to defendant Nos. 4 to 6 on the one hand and defendant No. 7 on the other. He contended that for approaching his agricultural land Survey No. 49 from village Salun he had to go first to Chaklasiwali Nal and had then to pass from the northern Shedha of Survey No. 47/1 and Survey No. 47/2 which belong to defendant Nos. 4 to 6 on the one hand and defendant No. 7 on the other. The plaintiffs further case is that having reached the nor there boundaries of Survey No. 46/1 and Survey No. 46/2 he used to en are the Kharba land of Survey No. 46/5 which was a joint land between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and through that Kharba land he used in approach his land Survey No. 49. The plaintiff claims that he is using this way since times immemorial since the days of his ancestors continuously and without any obstruction. His further case is that horehound the defendants are of the same family and their common ancestor was one Gopaldas Kalidas who was the owner of both the lands Survey Nos. 49 and 46. Thereafter there was a division of properties and the defendant No. 1 came into possession of Survey No. 46/6 which was a subdivision of Survey No. 46. Survey No. 46/5 was kept joint between the parties. Plaintiffs further case is that even though he was utilizing the said way as an easementary right since so many years on 10/04/1967 the said right was obstructed by defendant No. 1 Consequently he had to file the aforesaid suit for getting necessary injunctions against the concerned defendants. ( 3 ) DEFENDANT No. 2 contested the suit as the main contesting defendant. Defendants Nos. 1 and 3 adopted the written statement of defendant No. 2. On a contention by defendant No. 2 that the suit suffered from nonjoinder of necessary parties the plaintiff amended his plaint and thereafter defendants Nos. 4 to 15 were joined as additional defendants. These other defendants did not seriously enter into the arena to contest the plaintiffs case. The real dispute is between the plaintiff on the one hand and defendants Nos. 1 2 and 3 on the other. Their contention was that the land Survey No. 46/5 is not of common ownership but is of independent ownership of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and as such the plaintiff has no right title or interest therein. The real dispute is between the plaintiff on the one hand and defendants Nos. 1 2 and 3 on the other. Their contention was that the land Survey No. 46/5 is not of common ownership but is of independent ownership of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and as such the plaintiff has no right title or interest therein. They also contended that the plaintiff had no easementary right as alleged by him and he had no right to pass with cart plough or bullocks through their Survey No. 46/5. Hence he was not entitled to any relief as prayed for by him in the suit. ( 4 ) ON these pleadings issued were framed at Exhibit 20. The learned Trial Judge after recording evidence of respective parties came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had proved that he had a right of way for carts etc. through the northern borders of Survey No. 47/1 and 47/2 and through the waste land of Survey No. 46/5 to go to his Survey No. 49. It was found by him that the plaintiff had established his case that he had this right by immemorial user or use for more than 20years ending within two years of the suit. Plaintiffs alternative case that he had a right to pass by the suit way since he had the easementary right of necessity was also held proved. The contesting defendants contention that the plaintiff had an alternative way to approach Survey No. 49 from the west on side thereof was held not proved. On the basis of the aforesaid findings of his the learned Trial Judge as a necessary corollary decreed the suit of the plaintiff and granted him a perpetual Adjunction against the concerned defendants. ( 5 ) AS staled above the trial Courts decree in favour of the plaintiff resulted into Regular Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1974 before the District Court of Kaira at Nadiad. It may be stated at this juncture that defendants 1a to 1f 2 and 3 challenged the decree of the Trial Court by professing the aforesaid appeal. The other defendants who were the owners of Survey 47/1 and 47/2 had not preferred any appeal against the decree of the Trial Court. The appeal of contesting defendants Nos. It may be stated at this juncture that defendants 1a to 1f 2 and 3 challenged the decree of the Trial Court by professing the aforesaid appeal. The other defendants who were the owners of Survey 47/1 and 47/2 had not preferred any appeal against the decree of the Trial Court. The appeal of contesting defendants Nos. 1a to 1f 2 and 3 has ultimately dismissed by the Appellate Court and that has brought the dissatisfied defendants appellants to this Court by way of present second appeal. ( 6 ) THE aforesaid facts will show that the contest between the parties is limited to plaintiff respondent No. 1 on the one side and the present appellants who are defendants Nos. 1a to 1f 2 and 3 respectively on the other side. So far as these contesting defendants are concerned they are the owners of Survey No. 46/1 and they also claim to be the sole owners of Survey No. 46/5. It is necessary to recall the plaintiffs main grievance at this stage. He claims the suit way from Survey Nos. 46/5 47 and 47/2. So far as Survey Nos. 47/1 and 47/2 are concerned their owners who are alleged to be servant owners by the plaintiff did not contest the decree passed by the Trial Court against them. Only the defendants 1a to 1f 2 and 3 who contested before the Appellate Court have challenged the appellate decree before this Court. ( 7 ) MR. B. R. Shah the learned advocate appearing for the appellants raised the following contentions in support of this appeal. 1 The learned Appellate Judge has committed an apparent error of law in holding that Survey No. 46/5 is a co-ownership pro only of which plaintiff respondent No. 1 is a co-owner along with the appellants. 2 Even assuming that Survey No. 46/5 in a co-ownership property between the parties even then the plaintiff cannot claim a right of way over the said property so as to approach his field Survey No. 49 as this would amount to creating an additional burden on a joint property and it would not amount to a reasonable user thereof. And consequently the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief on the basis that he had a right to utilize Survey No. 46/5 for approaching his own land Survey No. 49. 3 It was lastly contended by Mr. And consequently the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief on the basis that he had a right to utilize Survey No. 46/5 for approaching his own land Survey No. 49. 3 It was lastly contended by Mr. Shah that in any case even assuming that the plaintiff can make use of Survey No. 46/5 to approach his Survey No. 49 as a co-owner he is required to use it in the most reasonable manner so that least burden is caused on its other co-owners. ( 8 ) MR. S. N. Shelat the learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff has supported the judgment and order passed by Who learned Appellate Judge. ( 9 ) THAT takes me to the second contention of Mr. Shah. It was submitted in the alternative by Mr. Shah that even assuming that Survey No. 46/5 is a joint property of the plaintiff and the appellants even then the plaintiff cannot use the said joint property to approach his exclusive Survey No. 49 which is situated in the south-west corner of the joint land Survey No. 46/5. According to Mr. Shah Survey No. 46/5 was to be used for taking water from the well and no other user could be countenanced even on the plat of any of the CO-wonder. Otherwise it would amount to a nonpermissible user thereof as would cast an additional burden on this joint land. There is no merit even in this submission of Mr. Shah. Once it is held that Survey No. 46/5 jointly belongs to the plaintiff as well as the appellant defendants it necessarily follows that the plaintiff cannot claim an easementary right over the said land. It must be stated that even the learned advocate for the plaintiff responddent before the levities appellate Court fairly conceded this position which has been noted in para 9 of the judgment of the Appellate Court. Once the plaintiff is not claiming or cannot claim any easementary right over his co-ownership property Survey No. 46/5 it is difficult to appreciate the apprehension of Mr. Shah that if the plaintiff is permitted to approach his Survey No. 49 through the co-ownership property Survey No. 46/5 it would amount to casting a burden on Survey No. 46/5. The plaintiff as a co-owner of Survey No. 46/5 has every right to reasonably use every part of Survey No. 46/5. Shah that if the plaintiff is permitted to approach his Survey No. 49 through the co-ownership property Survey No. 46/5 it would amount to casting a burden on Survey No. 46/5. The plaintiff as a co-owner of Survey No. 46/5 has every right to reasonably use every part of Survey No. 46/5. As it is well-settled so long as partition does not take place every co-owner of a joint property is entitled to use any and every part thereof consistently with the right of user of the other co-owners and such user by a co-owner should be reasonable in the sense that it should not amount to ouster of the other Co-owners. Subject to that limitation the reasonable user by a co-owner of co-ownership property consistent with the right of other co-owners is perfectly justified. In fact such a user would be a necessary concomitant of the Co-ownership right. As Survey No. 46/5 is fount to b long jointly to the plaintiff and the appellant defendants he is entitled to pass through the said land to approach his Survey No. 49 which is situated just neat south west corner of survey No. 46/5. if the plaintiff travels through the said co-ownership land which belongs jointly to him as well as the appellate it cannot be said that he is casting an additional burden on the co-ownership land and thereby he is ousting the appellants from the said land. Consequently it cannot be said that by permitting the plaintiff to travel over the co-ownership land Survey No. 46/5 an unnecessary burden is being imposed on the said Survey No. 46/5. It may be recalled at this juncture that even though the plaintiff travels over Survey No. 46/5 which is a joint land of his along with the appellants no easementary right is created in his favour so far as Survey No. 49 is concerned it can never be styled as a dominant tenant visa-vis Survey No. 46/5. Consequently no burden is being cast on Survey No. 46/5 because a co-owner of it utilizes it for approaching his own exclusive land Survey No. 49 which is situated on its south-western corner. In that view of the matter the apprehension felt by Mr. Shah is misplaced and has no factual or legal justification. The second contention of Mr. Shah therefore is also devoid of any merit and is liable to be rejected. In that view of the matter the apprehension felt by Mr. Shah is misplaced and has no factual or legal justification. The second contention of Mr. Shah therefore is also devoid of any merit and is liable to be rejected. ( 10 ) THAT takes me to the last contention of Mr. Shah. Mr. Shah submitted that even assuming that the plaintiff can utilize Survey No. 46 which is a joint ownership property with the appellants he must so use the said land for approaching his Survey No. 49 that no avoidable in convenience is caused to the other co-shares of the said land. To that extent Mr. Shah is right. Even though the plaintiff is a co-owner of Survey No. 46/5 with the appellants he can utilize it for approaching on Survey No. 49 in a way which is least onerous to his other co-owners. That would really amount to a reasonable user of the said land. It is true that the plaintiff is not getting any easementary right over Survey No. 46/5 for approaching his Survey No. 49. But even in cases of easementary rights of way provisions of sec. 22 of the Indian Easements Act 1882 would apply. They provide that the dominant owner must exercise his right in the mode which is least onerous to the service owner. It is true that between appellants on the one side and the respondent plaintiff on the other there is other any dominant owner nor any servant owner. Hence strictly speaking sec. 22 may not apply. Still as a co-owner he is to utilize the co-ownership property in a reasonable manner which does not unnecessarily inconvenience the other co-owners. It must be stated at this juncture that the decree passed by the learned Trial Judge is in very wide terms. A perpetual injunction is granted against the appellants defendants restraining them from obstructting the cart road and disputed way from Chaklasi road to the northern boundary of Survey No. 47/1 Kharba and finally through cart road in the boundary of Survey No. 49 adjoining the Kharba with carts bullocks and plough. Mr. Shah finds fault with this decree passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the appellants and other defendants. Mr. Shah finds fault with this decree passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the appellants and other defendants. But such a decree can operate consistently with the defendant contention that the right of way i. e. the utilisation of the way for the plaintiff over Surely No. 46/5 would be in such a manner as not to unnecessarily inconvengience the defendants. In fact merely because the plaintiff Carries his carts his bullocks and plough through the co-ownership property survey No. 46 it Cannot be said that any unreasonable in Connivance is being caused to the defendants. It is obvious that he will have to at se the said joint ownership property in a manner which would cause least inconvenience his other co-shares. The decree passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court is in no way inconsistent with the aforesaid contention raised by Mr. Shah on behalf of the contesting defendants. Hence even this apprehension of Mr. Shah is not well-founded. In the result none of the contentions raised by Mr. Shah has any merit and consequently this second appeal falls and shall stand dismissed. In view of the near relationship of parties there will be no order as to costs in this second appeal. .