ORDER 1. In view of the elaborate arguments that have been advanced at the Bar we deem it proper to support our conclusions, which is adverse to the petitioners, with our reasons therefor, 2. The petitioners are two out of three co-owners who had instituted a suit for eviction of the respondent No.1-tenant. The third co-owner (Respondent No. 2 here in) , who is the defendant No. 2 in the suit, in his written statement, objected to the eviction and explicitly stated that the suit is without its consent. The trial Court while considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendant No. 2 thought it proper to hold that the objection raised with regard to maintainability should be decided in the course of the trial of the suit. 3. In appeal, the High Court took a different view holding the suit to be not maintainable. Hence, these petitions for special leave to appeal to challenge the said order. 4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 5. The issue of maintainability of a suit in the facts noticed above apparently has not fallen for consideration before this Court. What has been decided and it will not be necessary to refer to the long line of cases on the point is with regard to the maintainability of a suit filed by a co-owner in the absence of any objection of another co-owner(s). Such a suit has been held to be maintainable. What would be the position if a co-owner objects, as in a present case, is the question that calls for an answer in the present petitions. 6. The closest decision on the point is in the case of India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. And Others vs. Bhagabandei Agarwalla (Dead) by LRs. Savitri Agarwalla(Smt) And Others, (2004) 3 SCC 178 which, however, does not answer the question fully as the objection of the co-owner in India Umbrella (supra) was in the course of the trial of the suit and in a situation where the suit property had changed hands. 7. The concept of co-ownership of immoveable property need to hardly detain the Court. Every co-owner has ownership of the entire property which in absence of any partition must be understood to extend to every inch of the property. 8. 7. The concept of co-ownership of immoveable property need to hardly detain the Court. Every co-owner has ownership of the entire property which in absence of any partition must be understood to extend to every inch of the property. 8. The very concept of co-ownership, in the absence of any partition, would militate against the maintainability of the suit for eviction against a tenant, where the tenant is admittedly in possession of the property which is owned by the co-owner who objects to the eviction. 9. The decision of Patna High Court in Sharfuddin and Others vs. Bijbi Khatija and Another AIR 1988 Patna 58 has been cited by Shri C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel, to persuade the Court that the view expressed therein may serve as a foundation for laying down the law upholding the maintainability of a suit filed in a situation where a co-owner does not consent and, in fact, objects to the decree of eviction sought by the other co-owner. It is contended that such a view would be a reasonable and logical extension of the law laid down by this Court with regard to maintainability of suit filed by a co-owner, where no objection is raised by another co-owner. 10. Having read and considered the judgment of the full Bench of the Patna High Court in Sharfuddin (supra) , we are unable to agree with the views expressed therein. The Patna High Court seems to have taken into account the power of veto which would be vested in a co-owner if a suit for eviction to which he objects is held to be not maintainable. The issue with regard to partition which is an option open to the co-owners who seek eviction was sought to be answered by the High Court by holding the aforesaid remedy to be cumbersome. When the law provides a remedy which the aggrieved party can avail of, the same cannot, in our considered view, be ignored only on the ground that asking the parties to avail of the said remedy would be relegating them to another round of litigation. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, we are inclined to take the view that the decision rendered by the High Court in first appeal is correct. We, therefore, affirm the said decision and dismiss these petitions for special leave to appeal against the order of the High Court.