JUDGMENT Hon’ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.—Heard Shri R.K. Pandey holding brief of Sri R.D. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner defendant and Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff respondents. This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed against the judgment and order dated 11.11.2005 of the appellate Court. 2. In a suit for permanent injunction the trial court had refused the prayer made for grant of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. against which an appeal was preferred before the court below and after hearing the parties, the appeal was allowed and temporary injunction has been granted in favour of the plaintiff respondents. 3. The plaintiffs have come with a case that they happen to be the owners of disputed plot to the extent of 1/2 share in it and the defendants have remaining 1/2 share of that property. The ownership of the parties is continuing jointly. However, the relief claimed in this petition is on the basis that the possession of the property, which is being held by the plaintiffs, is threatened to be disturbed by the misconduct on the part of the defendant. 4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner defendant that in a joint property, the possession of each co-sharer over every inch of the joint property is there and, as such, this suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable. He has cited certain case law of this court but in reply to the aforesaid the Full Bench decision of this court given in Chhedi Lal and another v. Chhotey Lal, 1951 ALJ 196 has been cited wherein it has been specifically held that if the right of co-sharers over the property possessed by him is invaded by other co-sharers in one or the other manner the suit for permanent injunction on behalf of the said co-sharers is not to be rejected summarily and the courts have to look into the facts and circumstances of each case, while granting or refusing a relief of temporary injunction. 5. In the present case the learned counsel for the parties have unequivocally submitted to the court that both the parties are in possession over 1/2 share each in the property in question and the possession of one is not to be disturbed by the other co-sharers. 5. In the present case the learned counsel for the parties have unequivocally submitted to the court that both the parties are in possession over 1/2 share each in the property in question and the possession of one is not to be disturbed by the other co-sharers. In such circumstances, if the order of status quo as on the date of suit, is directed to be maintained, they will have no objection. 6. In view of the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of with this direction that the parties, as have been in possession over the disputed land on the date of suit, shall maintain status quo and will not disturb the possession of each other during the pendency of the suit. Order Accordingly. ———