.Jayasimha Babu, J: On the suit for partition O.S.No.43 of 1982 before the Sub Court, Sivaganga, a decree was made in favour of the plaintiff in respect of some of the properties mentioned in the plaint schedules. 2. Against that decree, six appeals have been preferred, one by the plaintiff and the other five by different groups of defendants. Those appeals are pending in this Court. 3. One of the defendants in the suit was L.Ramakrishnan Chettiar, the elder brother of the plaintiff Subramanian Chettiar. The Trial Court found that the properties with which were are presently concerned belong to the HUF of Ramakrishnan Chettiar. His wife, his daughters, his sons and daughters-in-law, as also their children were also parties to the suit. There is no dispute that Ramakrishnan Chettiar is the kartha of that joint family. 4. The subject matter of the present letters patent appeals are five coffee estates which are referred to in the pleadings as ‘small estates’ and are situated at Yercaud Taluk, Salem District. The total extent is said to be 190 acres. These properties admittedly stand in the names of the four daughters-in-law of Ramakrishnan Chettiar. They had jointly executed power of attorney in favour of Ramanathan and Subramniam, two of the four sons of Ramakrishnan Chettiar. That power of attorney enabled the agent to substitute another in his place. Subramaniam substituted his brother Valliappan in his place. Ramanathan died and no one else has taken his place. Valliappan thus became the sole agent of the four co-owners. 5. During the pendency of these appeals in this Court those appeals are still pending being of the year 1993 and are not yet ripe for hearing - Valliappan sought an injunction against two of the co-owners viz, widows of the two brothers - Ramanathan and Lakshmanan, sons of Ramakrishnan Chettiar, as also against his parents and one of his nephews Kannan, S/o. Late Lakshmanan. It was is case that these estates had been managed by him for over two decades and that his father and his nephew having developed anmosity towards him on account of his opposition to the appointment of his nephew Kannan, as one of the co-receivers in respect of other estates, they had been interfering with the administration of these estates and, therefore, should be injuncted from doing so. He also alleged that his father had removed some documents from the office of the estates unauthorisedly. 6. The learned single Judge held that the documents, in fact, been removed and directed their return. For holding so, he relied on what he though was failure on the part of the father Ramakrishnan Chettiar to file an affidavit denying the allegations made against him. The learned single Judge overlooked the fact that an affidavit had, in fact, been filed by the grand son Kannan who had a power of attorney from his by the grand son and had failed the affidavit also on behalf of Ramanathan Chettiar, wherein, he had denied the allegation that documents had been removed from the estate. Learned counsel for Valliappan submits that the direction given by the learned single Judge is no longer of any significance, as duplicates of the documents had been obtained from other sources. The direction given by the learned single Judge for directing Ramakrishnan Chettiar to produce the documents allegedly removed from the estate is not a direction which cannot be upheld and is set aside. It is clear that there was no such removal and the applicant Valliappan had not placed any material to show that contrary to what has been stated by Kannan who also spoke for his grand father, the documents had, in fact, been removed from the estates. 7. In so far as the prayer for injunction is concerned, the learned single Judge has held that it is permissible for an agent even to keep some of the co-owner out even after the revocation of the power of attorney granted in his favour by these co-owners. Of the four co-owners, two of them had removed the power of attorney given to Valliappan, during the pendency of the application before the trail Judge; His wife who is one of the co-owners and the wife of Subramaniam as the power of attorney agent, have not cancelled the power of attorney in his favour. However, the other two co-owners viz., the widows of the two deceased brothers - Ramanathan and Lakshmanan have cancelled the power of attorney that had been given by them to Valliappan. They have subsequently appointed Kannan S/o Lakshmanan as their agent. 8. However, the other two co-owners viz., the widows of the two deceased brothers - Ramanathan and Lakshmanan have cancelled the power of attorney that had been given by them to Valliappan. They have subsequently appointed Kannan S/o Lakshmanan as their agent. 8. In case of co-ownership, every co-owner has a right of domain over every part of the property owned by all of them, and no one of them can be kept out of enjoyment by other or others. If the co-owners cannot keep each other out, the agent of one or more of them would clearly have no authority whatever to keep the other co-owners out of the property owned by them. Learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the passage at page 306 of Salmond on Jurisprudence, Seventh Edition, wherein, the position of the co-owners has been discussed and where their common right over their property is described as an “undivided integrity”. It is clear that the agent of the two of the co-owners has no authority whatever to keep out of the other two co-owners merely on the strength of the agency which subsists as between him and two of the co-owners. 9. Even as the applicant Valliappan can claim to act for two of the co-owners on the strength of the power of attorney given in his favour, so also Kannan in whose favour of the other two co-owners have given the power of attorney can act on their behalf. 10. It is no doubt true as pointed out by counsel for the respondent that this is likely to create confusion and will contribute to inefficient management of the property. But, that if that is what the co-owners want, it is a consequence they have to live with. 11. Until the Appellate Court holds otherwise, al these properties are to be regarded as property be belonging to the joint family of Ramakrishnan Chettiar. Valliappan cannot have an injunction against the kartha in respect of the property which belongs to the joint family. 12. 11. Until the Appellate Court holds otherwise, al these properties are to be regarded as property be belonging to the joint family of Ramakrishnan Chettiar. Valliappan cannot have an injunction against the kartha in respect of the property which belongs to the joint family. 12. Thus, whether the property is treated as jointly owned by the four daughters-in-law of Ramakrishnan Chettiar, or treated as the joint family property of the HUF of which he is the Kartha, Valliappan who is only one of the sons of Ramakrishnan Chettiar and who is not shown as the owner in any of the documents, cannot obtain an injunction against his father, the Kartha or against his two sister-in-law whose names appear in the documents as co-owners along with the wives of Valliappan and his brother Subramaniam or against their agent. 13. Counsel for the respondents then submitted that the appeals may be directed to be listed for expeditious disposal. Merely because these matters have come up before us in one of the applications filed in the appeal, we cannot allow the appeals to jump in the que and take precedence over appeals of earlier years which are still awaiting disposal even after fifteen years. The letters patent appeals are allowed. Consequently C.M.P.Nos.1644 and 1645 of 1999 are closed.