JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - Aggrieved by the order of the Civil judge, Meerut dated 28-5-1990 whereby injunction can be granted to the plaintiff-respondent, the defendant-appellants have approached this court through the above mentioned appeal. 2. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants the main grievance of the learned Counsel for the appellants before us is that the appellants are co-sharer in the disputed property and no injunction can be granted to the plaintiff-respondent against a co-owner. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, the impugned order is perverse and cannot be sustained it has also been emphasised that an the observation made in the impugned order, it is not very clear that the defendants land has been demarcated or the plaintiff land is identifiable on the spot. 3. After hearing Learned Counsel for the parties at some length, we are not satisfied that the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants are correct. The document of title in favour of the defendants-appellant has not been produced before us. On the finding recorded by the Civil Judge, the claim of the plaintiff appears to have been prima facie proved regarding the disputed land. In such a circumstance, it is very doubtful whether the defendant-appellants can be termed as co-owners of the land which was subject matter of the earlier suit of the year 1954 wherein the claim of the plaintiff-respondent has been accepted. To our mind the Judgement of the year 1954 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent proves the prima facie claim of the plaintiff to the disputed land. 4. In the impugned order, the trial Court has restrained the parties from raising construction over the land of the other party. Therefore, we think that substantial justice has been done between the parties and the impugned order of the trial Court is eminently just and equitable. 5. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that unless the land of the defendants is demarcated or the plaintiff had sought the relief of partition no injuntion could be granted to the plaintiff-respondent. We do not agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants in the facts and circumstances of the present case when the plaintiff-respondent was found entitled to the disputed land and her possession had already been demarcated in the earlier litigation of the year 1954. We do not agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants in the facts and circumstances of the present case when the plaintiff-respondent was found entitled to the disputed land and her possession had already been demarcated in the earlier litigation of the year 1954. The report and map of the receiver in that suit has been relied upon by the subordinate Court. 6. In view of the aforesaid conclusion, we do not find any merit in the present appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed under order 41 Rule 11, C. P. C.