JUDGMENT K. KANNAN, J. The substantial question of law that arise for consideration in this second appeal is as follows:- Whether the plaintiffs could have been denied the relief of injunction for the only reason that they were coowners with the defendants, failing to note that plaintiffs' possession to the property was admitted to have been under an arrangement with the other coowners/ defendants? The plaintiffs claimed possession to the property of about 260 kanals 10 marlas land out of 1077 kanals 10 marlas land held by several persons, including the plaintiffs and the defendants. The plaintiffs claimed that they were in exclusive possession of the property in dispute while the defendants being coowners were also in possession of some other portion of the property. The trial court granted a decree for injunction on the basis of the admission that the plaintiffs were in possession of the particular extent of the property. The appellate court denied the plaintiffs' right and dismissed their suit for injunction on a reasoning that a coowner in possession cannot maintain an action of injunction against other coowner. It is against this judgment that the second appeal has been filed. The principle that a coowner cannot maintain an action of injunction against another coowner is on a precept that so long as the property is not divided by metes and bounds, each coowner represents the holding of possession of every other coowner. There is another assumption that right of possession must be held in every inch of land to the extent of a coowner's share and not to any specific extent till the property is not predicated and delivered to one coowner as representing his share. Exceptions are when by a common consent of all persons there is enjoyment of specific portion of the property, which is to subsist for a particular time. A person who sues for injunction shall, therefore, prove an arrangement and it will be not sufficient that he is in possession of a particular extent of property. If there had been no particular arrangement which allows for retention of the property the relief of injunction cannot be granted. The relief sought by the plaintiffs would not be possible for the only reason that the plaintiffs' case was not more than a plea that they had been in possession of particular portion of the property free of obstruction. If there had been no particular arrangement which allows for retention of the property the relief of injunction cannot be granted. The relief sought by the plaintiffs would not be possible for the only reason that the plaintiffs' case was not more than a plea that they had been in possession of particular portion of the property free of obstruction. If they had received any interference to their possession or apprehended a serious disturbance, the remedy for such coowner was only to sue for partition and seek in equity for allotment of the property in possession to their own share in the final decree proceedings. An injunction which could not have been maintained as an interim relief in a suit for partition could not be converted as a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants/coowners. Dismissal of such a suit was perfectly justified and I find no reason to interfere with the decree. The substantial question of law so raised is answered as above. The appeal is dismissed.