L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal is filed by the defendant in O. S. No. 521 of 1984 on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif, vizianagaram. ( 2 ) THE respondent, who is the elder brother of the appellant, filed the suit for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of ac. 1. 64 cents out of Ac. 6. 66 cents of land in Sy. No. l36/a old (Sy. No. 296/2 new) of Lakkidam village of Vizianagaram District. He pleaded that himself and two others have jointly purchased an extent of Ac. 3-00 out of Ac. 6. 66 cents of land through a sale deed dated 11-11-1969, which is marked as Ex. A. l. According to him, there was a family partition between himself and the appellant herein much before the purchase of the said land and though the appellant had nothing to do with the land, he started interfering with his possession. ( 3 ) THE appellant filed a written statement, disputing the contents of the plaint. He pleaded that the suit schedule property was purchased with the sale proceeds of an item of the property belonging to the family and being the elder member and Kartha of the family, the respondent purchased it in his name along with the other co-purchasers. It was also his case that in accordance with the family arrangement, he is in possession and enjoyment of the said item of property. ( 4 ) THROUGH its judgment and decree dated 20-8-1991, the trial court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed A. S. No. 69 of 1991 before the Court of the Additional District judge, Vizianagaram and the appeal was allowed on 26-7-1994. Hence the present Second Appeal. ( 5 ) SRI M. Ram Mohan, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the respondent was not sure as to the location of the suit schedule property and that the boundaries furnished in the suit schedule relate to the entire land purchased through Ex. A. 1. Learned counsel points out that when one of the co-purchasers under Ex. A. 1 disputed the right of the respondent by deposing as dw. 2, there was absolutely no basis for the lower appellate Court in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court. A. 1. Learned counsel points out that when one of the co-purchasers under Ex. A. 1 disputed the right of the respondent by deposing as dw. 2, there was absolutely no basis for the lower appellate Court in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Sri K. Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that though the appellant and respondent are brothers, partition took place much prior to the purchase under Ex. A. 1. He contends that the respondent is in possession and enjoyment of the definite extent of his share and there does not exist any uncertainty as to the suit schedule property. Though the suit was filed for the relief of injunction simplicitor, the trial Court framed as many as four issues, touching on various aspects, in view of the pleadings of the parties. The issues are as under;-1. Whether the suit for mere injunction without a prayer for declaration is maintainable? 2. Whether the plaintiff is an exclusive possession of the suit land on the date of the suit? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pray for injunction against another co-owner? 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 5. To what relief?on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff, PWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. A. l to A. 8 were marked. On behalf of the appellant/defendant DWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. B. 1 to b. 4 were marked. In addition to that Ex. X. 1 - registered sale deed dated 16-10-1970 was also taken on file. After hearing both the sides and considering the material on record, the trial Court answered all the issues in favour of the appellant/defendant and dismissed the suit. On appeal preferred by the respondent/plaintiff before the Court of Additional District judge, Vizianagaram, the judgment and decree of the trial Court was reversed by the lower appellate Court. In this Second Appeal, two questions fall for consideration before this Court, namely (1) Whether the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? and (2) Whether the respondent/plaintiff was entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction? admittedly, the suit schedule property was part of ac. 6. 66 cents. The respondent and two others have purchased an extent of Ac. 3-00 jointly through Ex. A. 1. Through Ex. X. 1 another extent of Ac. 1. and (2) Whether the respondent/plaintiff was entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction? admittedly, the suit schedule property was part of ac. 6. 66 cents. The respondent and two others have purchased an extent of Ac. 3-00 jointly through Ex. A. 1. Through Ex. X. 1 another extent of Ac. 1. 66 cents in the same survey number was said to have been purchased. However, the purchasers under Ex. X. 1 are the appellant and another person, by name Karu Demudu, who was examined as DW. 2. There is nothing in the plaint to disclose as to whether the property covered by Exs. A. 1 and X. 1 were partitioned among the co-purchasers and if so, the pattern thereof. The evidence is also silent on that point. Once it has emerged that the respondent is only the co-purchaser and co-owner of the property purchased under exs. A. 1 and X. 1, it is not open to him to claim exclusive right over any part of the land covered by the said document. Such a course would have been possible if only any partition has taken place among them. The boundaries furnished in the suit schedule, by and large, tally with the boundaries in Ex. X. 1. In case, there was a partition among the respondent and his co-owner, certainly one of them would have figured as a neighbour on one side or the other of the suit schedule property. That is not so. Therefore, the respondent, at the best, answers the description of co-owner of the property purchased under the two documents and he could have maintained the suit only by joining the other two co-owners in the plaint. No person, who has an undivided share, can claim exclusive rights vis-a-vis a common or joint property. Therefore, the suit in the present form is not maintainable. The second question is as to the entitlement of the respondent for the relief of perpetual injunction. For the reasons best known to him, the respondent did not examine any of the co-owners under Exs. A. 1 and X. 1 as witnesses. On the other hand, one of the co-purchasers was examined as DW. 2. He categorically stated that the father of the appellant and the respondent was a tenant in respect of the land purchased under ex. A. 1 and that the respondent sold an extent of Ac. A. 1 and X. 1 as witnesses. On the other hand, one of the co-purchasers was examined as DW. 2. He categorically stated that the father of the appellant and the respondent was a tenant in respect of the land purchased under ex. A. 1 and that the respondent sold an extent of Ac. 0-30 cents of land belonging to the family for payment of part consideration under Ex. A. 1. Once it has emerged that the father of the parties to the suit was the tenant, it was not open to the respondent to have acquired exclusive rights of ownership without the consent of, or notice to the appellant, unless it is clearly established that the tenancy rights vis-a-vis undivided share of the land covered by exs. A. 1 and X. 1 has fallen to the share of the respondent. This was unfortunately neither pleaded nor established by the respondent. Further, the evidence on record clearly discloses that the appellant herein is in possession of the property in question. Therefore, there was no basis for the lower appellate Court in granting the relief of perpetual injunction in favour of the respondent. At the most, it could have left it open to the respondent to seek the relief of declaration of title, in which event, all the doubts expressed hereinabove could have been clarified. ( 6 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the Second Appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is set aside. However, it is left open to the respondent/plaintiff to workout his remedies in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.