Judgment Sureshwar Thakur, J. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree, rendered on 31.05.2003, by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 49 of 1996, whereby, the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal preferred, by the appellants/plaintiffs. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the land comprised in Khata No.660, khatoni No.931, khasra No.2052 measuring 1 kanal 12 marlas and khatoni No. 932, khasra No.2053 measuring 4 kanals 12 marlas situated in Tika Sujanpur, Tappa Bhaleth, Sub Tehsil plaintiffs, defendants No.1 to 5 and other co-sharers. The mutation of sale of khasra No.2054/1, measuring 2 marlas and mutation No.7613 is also entered in the name of defendant No.1. It is pleaded that the husband of defendant No.2 and father of defendants No.3 to 5 illegally in contravention of law sold khasra No.2054/1 measuring 2 marlas vide tatima sale out of the land comprised in khasra No.2054 on 31.10.1990 without the consent of the plaintiffs and other co-sharers. The deceased Matlabi had no right to sell the specific portion of the joint land by tatima sale in favour of defendant No.1. It is further pleaded that this sale deed is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs and other co-sharers and is liable to be cancelled and quashed. It has been further pleaded that the defendants on the basis of this illegal sale of the suit land, have no right to raise constructions over this land which is still joint and un-partitioned yet the defendant started digging the suit land with a view to raise construction over it without the consent of the plaintiffs and other co-sharer despite the repeated requests of the plaintiffs. Hence the suit. 3. The defendants/respondents contested the suit and filed separate written statements. Defendant No.5 in his written statement admitted the claim of the plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 filed separate written statement thereby denied the claim of the plaintiffs. It is submitted that the deceased Matlabi was in exclusive and established possession of the land comprised under khasra No.2054/1, therefore, he had every right to sell this specific portion of the suit land to the vendee and as such he executed and registered the sale of the suit has been averred to be perfect and legal. It is submitted that the deceased Matlabi was in exclusive and established possession of the land comprised under khasra No.2054/1, therefore, he had every right to sell this specific portion of the suit land to the vendee and as such he executed and registered the sale of the suit has been averred to be perfect and legal. It is pleaded that the vendee is also in exclusive established possession of the suit land on the basis of this sale deed. The construction work has been averred by defendant No.1 to have been completed by him before the filing of the suit. It is also pleaded that at that time no one including the plaintiffs raised any objection. 4. The plaintiffs/appellants filed replication to the written statement of the defendants/respondents, wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the plaint. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck following issues inter-se the parties in contest:- 1. Whether the impugned sale of suit land by late Sh. Matlabi in favour of defendant No.1 is illegal, null and void, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for? OPP 3. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of the evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs. In appeal, preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs before the learned first Appellate Court, against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, the learned first Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 7. Now the plaintiffs/appellants have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court, assailing the findings, first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission on 3.11.2003, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the plaintiffs/appellants, against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court on the hereinafter extracted substantial question of law:- 1. Whether the land in suit having been held to be joint amongst the parties t the suit, therefore, the appellants are entitled to a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restrained the respondents not to change the nature thereof and not to put any specific portion to their exclusive use? 2. Whether the land in suit having been held to be joint amongst the parties t the suit, therefore, the appellants are entitled to a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restrained the respondents not to change the nature thereof and not to put any specific portion to their exclusive use? 2. Whether a co-sharer without seeking partition of land has no right to change nature of the joint land/property and therefore, the appellants are entitled to relief of declaration and injunction as claimed? Substantial questions of Law No.1 and 2: 8. One Matlabi, since deceased, a co-owner in the suit property alienated two marlas of land through registered deed of conveyance, Ex.DA, in favour of defendant No.1. The parties do not wrangle over the factum of Matlabi, a co-sharer in the suit property while having under Ex.DA alienated the property mentioned therein comprising of two marlas of land in favour of defendant No.1 having parted with property recited therein equivalent or in commensuration of his share in the joint property inter se the parties at contest of which the suit property formed a part. However, what has invited the controversy inter se the litigating parties is the factum of tatima annexed to Ex. DA, ascribing a separate field number to the area of 2 marlas of land, alienated by Matlabi through a registered deed of conveyance executed by him in favour of defendant No.1. The tatima appended with the sale deed was ascribed a separate khasra No.2054/1 to the suit property. The ascription of a separate field number to the area of two marlas alienated by Matlabi through a registered deed of conveyance comprised in Ex. DA in co-owners, hence, each of the co-owners in the joint suit property had a right compatible with or equivalent to the right inhering in Matlabi therein. Obviously, then the ascription of a separate field number to the area of two marlas of land comprised in sale deed Ex.DA is per se untenable. DA in co-owners, hence, each of the co-owners in the joint suit property had a right compatible with or equivalent to the right inhering in Matlabi therein. Obviously, then the ascription of a separate field number to the area of two marlas of land comprised in sale deed Ex.DA is per se untenable. However, the factum of untenability, hence, to be imputed to the tatima showing the area of two marlas of land conveyed under registered deed of conveyance executed by Matlabi in favour of defendant No.1 bearing or earmarked a distinct khasra number 2054/1, even without ascription therein having been preceded by a valid partition inter se the parties at contest, would neither impinge upon nor detract from the validity of the sale deed executed inter se Matlabi and defendant No.1. The reason for so concluding is that since it is uncontrovereted that the sale of two marlas of land to defendant No.1 under Ex. DA by Matlabi did not comprise an area beyond the share of Matlabi in the joint suit land, hence when Matlabi, vendor in Ex.DA was empowered to alienate two marlas of land, it being within his share, obviously then consent of other co-owners was neither enjoined by law nor was imperative before he proceeded to execute a registered deed of conveyance qua two marlas of land in favour of defendant No.1. In aftermath, if the sale deed comprising an alienation by Matlabi in favour defendant No.1 is to the extent of his share in the joint land, the factum of a separate field number having been ascribed to two marlas of land, inasmuch, it being earmarked to be Khasra No. 2054/1 without such ascription being preceded by a valid partition inter se the parties so as to dismember the jointness of the suit land, would not, hence, when Matlabi had a right to convey title in favour of defendant No.1, to the extent of his share and which share has not been proved to be less than two marlas of land, obviously render sale deed Ex.DA to loose its validity. 9. 9. Even though, it was incumbent upon Matlabi to before proceeding to execute Ex.DA in favour of defendant No.1 of two marlas of land ascribed or its being delineated as khasra No.2054/1 to get jointness of the suit land severed by a valid partition so as to foist such distinct ascription aforesaid with validity, as corollary non severance to the joint land by valid partition inter se the co-owners renders the ascription of or earmarking of a separate field number/khasra number to be untenable. However, yet when it has been held that the ascription of a separate field number in the tatima appended to Ex. DA would not detract nor impinge upon the validity of the sale deed executed inter se Matlabi and defendant No.1, hence, then the tatima appended to the sale deed can alone be reckoned to be not constituting partition or dismemberment of jointness of the suit property held as co-owners by the parties at contest. As a sequel then it ought to be concluded that it is yet open to the parties at contest to even in the face of a ascription of separate field number to an area of two marlas sold to defendant No.1 by Matlabi comprised in Ex. DA, to by resorting to appropriate modes available under law seek dismemberment or partition or severance of joint status by approaching the competent authority. As a corollary to the above findings, it is to be held that the area of two marlas sold to defendant No.1 by Matlabi too is joint inter se the parties at contest alike other land held in co-ownership by them with all the incidents of co-ownership inhering in the joint land. 10. In so far as the tenability of the refusal of relief of injunction in favour of plaintiffs/appellants, is concerned, the evidence and material on record which constrained the learned trial Court to proceed to refuse the relief of injunction to the plaintiffs/appellants was the lack of remonstrance on the part of the plaintiffs/appellants to contest the attestation of mutation of the sale in favour of defendant No.1 in sequel to execution of Ex. DA, as existing on the joint land houses of other co-sharers as well. DA, as existing on the joint land houses of other co-sharers as well. Given the fact that hence, when the parties at contest along with other co-sharers are joint owners in the khata and with some of the co-owners having raised residential houses in commensuration to their shares in the joint khata, it would be inequitable while weighing equities for according or refusing of the equitable relief of injunction to the plaintiffs/appellants against the purported acts of invasion or threat at the instance of the defendants/respondents to in derogation of the rights of the latter in the joint land to the extent of two marlas, accord the relief of injunction to the plaintiffs/appellants, when such according of relief would work hardship to the defendant/respondents as also imbalance the equities in proportion to their share especially when other co-shares have raised houses thereon. For reiteration, mitigation of their hardship would accrue in case the alike other co-owners with the defendants/respondents, who have utilized the joint suit land to the extent of their shares therein, so also the defendant/respondents being permitted to do so, so as not to imbalance equities. Concomitantly, the refusal of injunction to the plaintiffs/appellants does not suffer from any perversity or absurdity and does not want interference from this Court. Both the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the defendants/respondents and against the plaintiffs/appellants. 11. The result of the above discussion is that the appeal, preferred by the plaintiff/appellant, is dismissed and the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, is affirmed and maintained. Record of the learned Courts below be sent back forthwith.