JUDGMENT Kamleshwar Nath, J. - Plot No. 951, measuring 3 Bighas 1 Biswa of village Munda, district Unnao, was a grove initially held by Lala. He had two sons Mokhai and Jham. Defendants Nos. 4 and 5, Bharat and Babu Lal, are the sons of Jham. Mokhai's only son Baldeo had four sons - Ram Swaroop (dead) and defendant-appellants Nos. 1 to 3 Chhotey Lal, Sri Pal and Kunwar Pal. Smt. Meera Devi claimed to be the widow of Ram Swaroop. 2. The plaint case, in substance, was that the defendant-appellants were not allowing her to use property and were, on the contrary, cutting away the trees and had actually cut away the trees worth Rs. 8,000/-. She therefore, sued for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant-appellants from interfering with her possession over the property and also for Rs. 2,000/- as her share of damages of the total value Rs. 8,000/-. In this sense, she claimed her share in the property in dispute to be th. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants Sri H. N. Tilhari and learned counsel for the respondent Sri P. L. Misra. 4. The defendant-appellants pleaded that the plaintiff-respondent was not the wife of Ram Swaroop at all, but was the wife of one Ram Bali alias Baba Ram Saran Das. It was said that it is they who had been in possession of the property and the plaintiff- respondent had nothing to do with it. They admitted that they had cut away some of the trees and had the intention of removing all the trees in order to bring the land under cultivation. 5. It is the concurrent finding of fact of both the courts below that Smt. Meera Devi plaintiff-respondent is the wife of Ram Swaroop. They accepted the valuation of the trees given by the defendant-appellants, namely, Rs. 2,000/-., and, therefore, held her to be entitled to a decree for Rs. 500/- as damages. Consequently, the suit was decreed for an injunction to restrain the defendant-appellants from interfering with the plaintiff-respondent's enjoyment of the property as also from cutting the trees and further for a decree of Rs. 500/- by way of damages. As already stated, the lower appellate court agreed with the findings recorded by the trial court and the defendant-appellants' appeal was dismissed. 6. 500/- by way of damages. As already stated, the lower appellate court agreed with the findings recorded by the trial court and the defendant-appellants' appeal was dismissed. 6. So far as the question of Smt. Meera Devi being the widow of Ram Swaroop is concerned, it is a concurrent finding of fact and no legal error in the finding has been indicated. This appeal, therefore, must proceed on the basis that Smt. Meera Devi is the widow of Ram Swaroop. 7. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellants says that the relief for injunction is misconceived because as a co-sharer she was not entitled to that relief. He has referred to the decisions in the cases of (1) Robert Westson & Co. v. Ram Chand Dutt, 1890 (17) Ind. App. 110 and (2) Midnapur Zamindary Co. Ltd. v. Naresh Narayan Roy, AIR 1924 PC 144 . On the contrary, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has referred to the case of Ram Prasad Tewari v. Sankoor Tewari, 1965 All LJ 515 to contend that a co-sharer's suit for injunction is maintainable. 8. The two cases, relied upon by the learned counsel for defendant-appellants, relate to the cultivation of joint land by one of the co-sharers exclusively and the law laid down, speaking broadly, is that where such exclusive cultivatory possession of a co-sharer does not amount to an ouster of the other co-sharers and is in the course of due management of the property, the proper remedy for the other co-sharers is for partition and not for injunction. The text for the applicability of the law, as stated, lies in the question whether the facts found constitute an ouster of a co-sharer or not. If such an exclusive possession constitutes an ouster and is of such a nature as is likely to cause irreparable loss or damage to the other co-sharers, the principle laid down in the two cases, relied upon by the defendant- appellants, may not be applicable. On the contrary, in those contingencies the principle laid down in the case, relied upon by the plaintiff-respondent, should be more appropriately applicable. That was a case of a grove, which had been planted by the common ancestor of both the parties. On the contrary, in those contingencies the principle laid down in the case, relied upon by the plaintiff-respondent, should be more appropriately applicable. That was a case of a grove, which had been planted by the common ancestor of both the parties. One of the co-sharers was not permitting the other co-sharer to make use of the property and the view taken by the High Court was that a relief for injunction is an appropriate remedy in such a case. I think that the decision in the case of Ram Prasad Tewari (supra) applies to the facts found in this case. 9. In this connection I invited the attention of learned counsel for defendant- appellants to indicate whether the parties possessed any other agricultural property. He says that he is not aware whether they possess or do not possess any other property. The material consideration is that a Bhumidhari tenure held by co-sharers is liable to be partitioned by metes and bounds only if the aggregate area exceeds 31/8 Acres as required by S. 178(1) of the U.P. Z. A. & L R. Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The total area of the plot in dispute is 3 Bighas 1 Biswa. It is far short of 31/8 Acres. The upshot is that if this is the only property, held jointly by the parties, it is not liable to be partitioned by metes and bounds. It is altogether a different matter that according to the applicable rules, under. S. 178 of the Act, the holding may have to be sold. In that contingency the courts cannot lose sight of the fact that by the time a sale of the property and division of the proceeds is effected between the co-sharers, the property itself may disappear. It appears to me that there is a basic distinction in the nature of the rights and remedies which justly follow in respect of a property which consists of a grove as distinct from bare land. It appears to me that there is a basic distinction in the nature of the rights and remedies which justly follow in respect of a property which consists of a grove as distinct from bare land. Perhaps, land cannot be permanently destroyed and, therefore, justice and fairness may require the aggrieved party to follow the procedure of partition even if it leads only to the sale or distribution of the proceeds, but, where the property consists of a grove, the felling of the trees thereof would constitute such permanent and .irreparable loss to the aggrieved co-sharer as would prompt the court to restrain the other co-sharer from destroying them till the remedy prescribed by S. 178 of the Act is availed of. The law of injunction, as laid down in the Specific Relief Act, contemplates both permanent injunction and temporary injunction - the temporary injunction itself may be of such a long duration as may enable the parties to have their rights adjudicated upon fairly and justly in an appropriate court of law. The idea is that even if there should be no permanent injunction against cutting away the trees, there must be an injunction at least of such duration as would enable the aggrieved party to obtain a partition or distribution of assets as the case may be. I am satisfied, therefore, that the decree for injunction, granted by the courts below is not contrary to law, the only modification which may be made is that such a decree will not stand in the way of claim for partition or disposal of the property according to law in the course of the partition proceedings. The relief claimed, therefore, cannot be said to be misconceived. 10. The next point urged by the learned counsel for defendant-appellants is that in any case the plaintiffs share in the property in dispute could not be more than ?th. In view of the relationship of the parties from the common ancestor Lala, as referred to in the earlier part of this judgment, there can be absolutely no doubt that the share of Smt. Meera Devi could not be more than ?th. A decree for Rs. 500/-, out of the assessed value of Rs. 2,000/-, is, therefore, erroneous and must be reduced to Rs. 250/-. 11. A decree for Rs. 500/-, out of the assessed value of Rs. 2,000/-, is, therefore, erroneous and must be reduced to Rs. 250/-. 11. The appeal is partly allowed and while the decree for injunction, till such time as the parties secure a partition of the property in dispute through court or otherwise, is confirmed, the decree for damages against the defendant-appellants is reduced to Rs. 250/-. 12. The parties shall bear costs of this appeal.