JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. Plaintiff is the appellant against a reversing judgment in a suit for permanent injunction. 2. The dispute pertains to a green fence. The plaintiff and the defendant are the adjacent plot owners. The plaintiff as the Karta of the family instituted the suit pleading, inter alia, that the defendant interfered with his possession. 3. The defendant resisted the claim on the ground that there are other co-owners. The suit at the behest of the plaintiff is not maintainable. The fence may be declared as joint fence. 4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck six issues. Parties led evidence. Learned trial court came to hold that the plaintiff is in occupation of the fence. Defendant admits trespass. Held so, it decreed the suit. Unsuccessful defendant appealed before the learned Subordinate Judged, Chatrapur in Title Appeal No.2 of 1985. Learned appellate court came to hold that as all brothers of the plaintiff have not parties to the suit. Thus the suit is not maintainable. Held so, it allowed the appeal. Hence, this appeal. 5. The second appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law enumerated in ground nos. a and b of the appeal memo. The same are - “(a) That in injunction suit filed by a co-owner against the trespasser is maintainable as it enures to the benefit of all the co-owners. In a suit of this nature all the co-owners may not be impleaded as parties; (b) That the learned trial court committed a grave error of law in relying on the principles laid down for a suit for recovery of possession which is distinct from injunction simplicter of a case for recovery of possession. The interest of the co-owners may not be the same but in a case of injunction against a trespasser there could be conflict of interest amongst the co-owners or the coparcenors.” 6. Heard Mr. Baibaswata Panigrahi, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. S.K. Padhi, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant. None appeared for the respondent. 7. Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the plaintiff being the Karta of the family instituted the suit. Since there is no conflict of interest between the plaintiff and the other co-sharers, the suit is maintainable. 8. Every co-sharer has interest in every inch of land. A co-sharer can protect the interest of other co-sharers. 7. Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the plaintiff being the Karta of the family instituted the suit. Since there is no conflict of interest between the plaintiff and the other co-sharers, the suit is maintainable. 8. Every co-sharer has interest in every inch of land. A co-sharer can protect the interest of other co-sharers. The other co-sharers, who have been examined as witnesses, have stated that the plaintiff has no adverse interest against them. There is no conflict of interest between them. The plaintiff has right to institute the suit as a Karta of the family. Learned appellate court though concurred with the findings of the learned trial court, but then on untenable and unsupportable ground dismissed the suit. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 9. A priori, the judgment of the learned appellate court is set aside. The appeal is allowed. Consequently the suit is decreed. There shall be no order as to costs.