JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal against a temporary injunction passed by the District Judge, Bhilwara. The facts are that the respondent No. 1 filed a suit against 6 defendants, 5 of whom are original co-owners of an agricultural land and two of the defendants has sold their undivided share in the land to one Ramdev, the appellant before me. The plaintiffs case was that Ramdev on the basis of the sale deed in his favour was trying to evict the plaintiffs and would obstruct him from using the joint property. An application for temporary injunction was moved in the suit by the plaintiffs praying for a temporary injunction against the defendant No. 6 Ramdev restraining him from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of joint property by the plaintiffs. The trial court granted the temporary injunction. Hence this appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that actually by the temporary injunction the appellant has been excluded from the enjoyment of his right as owner of undivided share sold to him by two or the co-owners. According to the learned counsel sale of an undivided share by a co-owner is perfectly valid and such sale confers a right on the purchasers to exercise all the rights in relation to the property which the seller could enjoy. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that a person purchasing undivided right in property can bring a suit for partition but cannot participate in the enjoyment of the property along with others. 3. Having heard the learned counsel and having perused the record I am of the opinion that nothing beyond what was sought by the plaintiff could have been given by the trial court and intact the trial court has not given an injunction against entry of the appellant in the fields or against his enjoyment of the undivided share. The entire burden of the application for temporary injunction was that the sale in favour of the appellant was illegal and under the garb of the. sale the appellant Ramdev would forcibly evict the plaintiffs and take exclusive possession of the lands. The temporary injunction therefore could only have been to the extent that the plaintiff would not be evicted from the property and would not be against the enjoyment of the property as a co-owner. sale the appellant Ramdev would forcibly evict the plaintiffs and take exclusive possession of the lands. The temporary injunction therefore could only have been to the extent that the plaintiff would not be evicted from the property and would not be against the enjoyment of the property as a co-owner. To my mind this is the exact meaning of the language used by the learned District Judge granting injunction. This appeal is therefore disposed by clarifying that the plaintiff shall not be evicted from the possession of the suit lands as a co-owner and his right to enjoy the lands as co-owner would not be hampered in any manner by defendant No. 6. No injunction has been granted his corning on the property or enjoying the undivided share alleged to have been sold to him. With this clarification the appeal is disposed of.Appeal disposed of accordingly. *******