Judgment : G. Rajasuria, J. The applicants herein, as plaintiffs, have filed the suit seeking the following reliefs: "a) to direct the suit schedule A and B properties to be divided in to 7 equal shares by meets and bounds, then allot the share to the plaintiffs and separate possession of the same. b) to appoint a commissioner to effect a division of the suit schedule A and B properties into 7 equal shares by meets and bounds and asking him to allot the respective shares to each of the plaintiffs. c) to direct the defendants to render accounts from September 2005 onwards, towards the monthly rents received by the defendants from the tenants let out in the suit schedule A, C and D properties and ask the defendants to pay the respective shares to the plaintiffs." (extracted as such) 2. The same applicants filed this application seeking the following relief: "to grant an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendant or their men or agents or anybody else claiming through them from interfering with peaceful and enjoyment of respective portions possessed by the applicants 2 to 4 herein in the plaint A schedule property, pending disposal of the suit." 3. Heard both sides. 4. The point for consideration is as to whether the applicants 2 to 4 herein are entitled to ad-interim injunction, so as to restrain the respondents/defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective portions in the plaint A scheduled property? 5. The learned counsel for the defendants in all fairness would submit that he is having no objection for both the parties to comply with the arrangements as suggested in paragraph No.4 of the affidavit accompanying this application in respect of A scheduled property alone. 6. The learned counsel for the applicants/plaintiffs also agrees for the same. 7. Paragraph No.4 of the affidavit accompanying this application is extracted hereunder for ready reference: "4. I submit that the applicants 2 to 4 are occupied in respective separate portions in A schedule property. The 2nd applicant is occupied in ground floor Eastern side; the 3rd applicant is occupied in the upstairs Eastern side; the 4th applicant is occupied in front Western side upstairs portion. The 1st and 3rd respondents are occupied in the Western side ground floor portion. The 2nd applicant is occupied in ground floor Eastern side; the 3rd applicant is occupied in the upstairs Eastern side; the 4th applicant is occupied in front Western side upstairs portion. The 1st and 3rd respondents are occupied in the Western side ground floor portion. The 2nd respondent is let out his portion Western rear side portion to one Devi w/o.Dharmalingam and the respondents are receiving the rental income. The respondents are enjoying with entire rental income arise out of schedule C and D properties and share in the income has been denied to the plaintiffs." 8. Even though in paragraph No.4 of the affidavit there are some averments relating to C and D scheduled properties, that would be separately dealt with, as suggested by the learned counsel for the applicants/plaintiffs. 9. The learned counsel for the defendants also would implore and entreat that this Court might direct the parties to live in their respective portions in the A schedule, without disturbing one another among themselves. 10. Accordingly, order is passed as under: In respect of A scheduled property is concerned, the arrangements as found set out in paragraph No.4 of the affidavit accompanying this application shall be adhered to by the parties and there should be mutual co-existence and not mutual antipathy or abhorrence, dislike or detest, aversion or abomination, recalcitrance or odium in enjoying it.