JUDGMENT : Challenging impugned order dated 17.12.20221 passed on I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC by XIV Addl. City Civil Judge & concurrent charge of XXXVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, (CCH-39) in O.S.No.8997/2019, this appeal is filed. 2. Appellant herein is plaintiff, while respondent herein was defendant. For sake of convenience, parties shall hereinafter referred as such in this appeal. 3. O.S.No.8997/2019 was filed seeking for relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property bearing no.9. 1st Cross, Levelle road, Bangalore, measuring, approximately 5500 sq.ft. with structure on it (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property'). In suit, plaintiff filed I.A.No.1 under Order XXXIX rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking order of temporary injunction restraining defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property during pendency of suit. In affidavit filed in support of application, it was stated averment in plaint were to be read as part and parcel. 4. On consideration, trial Court passed impugned order dismissing application. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is filed. Plaintiff/appellant appeared in person and submitted that impugned order suffers from various vices including nonapplication of mind. Elaborating same, it was stated that observation of trial Court regarding extent of share of plaintiff and defendant differed in different places of impugned order. 5. While in para no.3, it observed that plaintiff along with other family members entered into family settlement on 9.4.2010 wherein defendant has got 50% undivided share; In para no.8, it observed that plaintiff and defendant were having 50% undivided share and in para no.10, it observed that plaintiff's father and his children were jointly entitled for share in suit property. Thus non-application of mind was evident. Trial Court further observed that injunction cannot be granted against co-owner of property, which would be unsustainable since plaintiff acquired title over entire suit property, which by adverse possession. Under such circumstances refusal to grant interim order only on ground that plaintiff had made out triable case, but not prima facie case would be unsustainable. It was further contended that being biased with false averments made in written statement, trial court held that plaintiff has not made out prima facie case. Even reason assigned that there were no averments in application or in plaint regarding prima face case would be unsustainable. 6. It was further contended that being biased with false averments made in written statement, trial court held that plaintiff has not made out prima facie case. Even reason assigned that there were no averments in application or in plaint regarding prima face case would be unsustainable. 6. He relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vidya Devi Alias Vidayavati (dead) by Lrs. Vs. Prem Prakash and Others : (1995) 4 SCC 496 , wherein, it was held in para no.28 held as under: "28. 'Ouster' does not mean actual driving out of the co-sharer from the property. It will, however, not be complete unless it is coupled with all other ingredients required to constitute adverse possession. Broadly speaking, three elements are necessary for establishing the plea of ouster in the case of co-owner. They are (i) declaration of hostile animus, (ii) long and uninterrupted possession of the person pleading ouster, and (iii) exercise of right of exclusive ownership openly and to the knowledge of other co-owner. Thus, a coowner, can under law, claim title by adverse possession against another co-owner who can, of course, file appropriate suit including suit for joint possession within time prescribed by law." Attention was also drawn to affidavit filed, wherein it was stated that defendant was staying in Mumbai, to substantiate that she was not in possession of suit property as on date of suit. 7. Further, relying on judgment of Himachal Pradesh in Ramesh Kumar Vs. Smt. Sheetal and Ors. : 2021 AIR CC 643, It was submitted that a co-owner would claim injunction against another co-owner. Attention was drawn to para no.17of said judgment wherein it was observed that even act of co-owner in possession when detrimental to interest of other co-owners, a co-owner out of possession can seek an injunction to prevent such act which is detrimental to his interest, would imply that plaintiff herein can seek injunction against defendants as she was disturbing plaintiff's possession. 8. It was also submitted that entire contents of impugned order requires to be taken into account and extracted while passing orders in this appeal. 9. On the other hand, Sri. S. Basavaraj, learned Senior Counsel appearing for defendant submitted that from plaint and written statement averments, it was an undisputed fact that both plaintiff and defendants were in possession as co-owners of suit property. 9. On the other hand, Sri. S. Basavaraj, learned Senior Counsel appearing for defendant submitted that from plaint and written statement averments, it was an undisputed fact that both plaintiff and defendants were in possession as co-owners of suit property. It was further submitted that khata in respect of suit schedule property stood in name of defendant as on date of suit and property tax was being paid by her. It was also stated in counter affidavit that defendant and her children were intermittently staying in suit property and hence has been in possession. It was further stated that there was no specific averment regarding plaintiff's possession in entire plaint. There was not even an assertion regarding cause of action. On reading of entire plaint, only cause of action for filing suit would be one expressed in para no.14 of plaint, wherein it was averred that demand was made by defendant seeking for partition of suit property. However prayer in suit was not either for partition or declaration, but only for permanent injunction. 10. Relying upon decision in Ramesh Kumar (supra) and in Vidya Devi Alias Vidya Vati (Dead) by Lrs. Vs Prem Prakash and Others, (1995) 4 SCC 496 , learned counsel submitted that it was settled law that injunction could not be granted against co-owner and sought for dismissal of appeal. In reply, appellant submitted that while passing impugned order, trial Court had taken note of entire contents of written statement into account. It also contained several incorrect and false submissions and being influenced by same, impugned order was passed and therefore, it requires to be set aside. 11. Heard on both side and perused record. 12. Only point that arises for consideration is: "Whether impugned order passed by trial Court on I.A.No.1 calls for interference?" 13. Firstly, submission of appellant that trial Court was influenced by false submissions and assertions made in written statement would be without much substance. Trial Court while passing impugned order has already stated reasons for passing same. Insofar as plaintiff submission that there was no application of mind, it is seen that though trial Court has employed different expressions about share of plaintiff and defendants in suit property, it is merely grammatical error. But sum and substance of above would be that both plaintiff and defendants are having share in suit property and were co-owners. Insofar as plaintiff submission that there was no application of mind, it is seen that though trial Court has employed different expressions about share of plaintiff and defendants in suit property, it is merely grammatical error. But sum and substance of above would be that both plaintiff and defendants are having share in suit property and were co-owners. Therefore, reason assigned by trial Court while passing impugned order that a co-owner cannot seek injunction against another co-owner would indicate erroneous understanding of trial Court. 14. A bare perusal of plaint averments which he averred that defendant has lost her interest by way of adverse possession itself would also indicate that they were co-owners. Therefore observations of trial Court about same cannot be faulted. Indeed, it would also require to be noted that though plaintiff has averred that he has acquired title by way of adverse possession over property, prayer sought in suit is not for declaration of title by adverse possession but only for permanent injunction. It would also be relevant to note that in the entire plaint plaintiff has not stated date of beginning of adverse possession and completion of 12 years prior to filing of suit, which would essential for seeking such right. 15. It is seen from application and affidavit filed by plaintiff, that except stating that averment made in plaint may be treated as part and parcel of affidavit, plaintiff has not made specific averments about prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury, for grant of temporary injunction even in plaint. Entire narration is mainly about various disputes between parties. Insofar as suit property is concerned plaintiff stated that he was in exclusive possession of suit property and defendants having been out of possession and he acquired title by way of adverse possession. 16. Insofar as interference is concerned only assertion is one stated in paragraph no.14 that respondent is asking for partition of suit property. Admittedly both plaintiff and defendant were having joint interest in suit property. It is not case of plaintiff that there was partition. Until then both of them are deemed to be in joint possession of suit property, law regarding possession of co-owners is well settled. Even in Ramesh Kumar case, (supra) it is clarified in para no.10 by referring to earlier decision in Sant Ram Nagina Ram V. Daya Ram Naagina Ram : AIR 1971 Punj. Until then both of them are deemed to be in joint possession of suit property, law regarding possession of co-owners is well settled. Even in Ramesh Kumar case, (supra) it is clarified in para no.10 by referring to earlier decision in Sant Ram Nagina Ram V. Daya Ram Naagina Ram : AIR 1971 Punj. 528, as follows: "10. Since, in the case at hand, it is not in dispute that the parties to the lis are joint owners of suit land and by way of application at hand, injunction is being sought against one of he co-owners, it would be apt to deal with rights and liabilities of co-sharers. In this regard, reliance is placed upon judgment endered by a Division Bench, of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sant Ram Nagina Ram v. Daya Ram Nagina Ram, AIR 1961 Punjab 528, wherein it has been held as under: (1) A co-owner has an interest in the whole property and also in every parcel of it. (2) Possession of the joint property by one co-owner is in the eye of law, possession of all even if all but one are actually out of possession. (3) A mere occupation of a larger portion or even of an entire joint property does not necessarily amount to ouster as the possession of one is deemed to be on behalf of all. (4) The above rule admits of an exception when there is ouster of a co-owner by another. But in order to negative the presumption of joint possession on behalf of all, on the ground of ouster, the possession, of a co-owner must not only be exclusive but also hostile to the knowledge of the other, as, when a co-owner openly asserts his own title and denies that of the other. (5) Passage of time does not extinguish the right of the co-owner who has been out of possession of the joint property except in the event of ouster or abandonment. (6) Every co-owner has a right to use the joint property in a husband like manner not inconsistent with similar rights of other co-owners. (5) Passage of time does not extinguish the right of the co-owner who has been out of possession of the joint property except in the event of ouster or abandonment. (6) Every co-owner has a right to use the joint property in a husband like manner not inconsistent with similar rights of other co-owners. (7) Where a co-owner is in possession of separate parcels under an arrangement consented to by the other co-owners, it is not open to any one to disturb the arrangement without the consent of others except by filing a suit for partition.” While summoning up legal position, Court has stated as follows: "17. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid exposition of law that a co-owner is not entitled to an injunction restraining another co-owner from exceeding his rights in the common property absolutely and simply because he is a co-owner unless any act of the person in possession of the property amounts to ouster prejudicial or adverse to the interest of the co-owner out of possession. Mere making of construction or improvement in the common property does not amount to ouster rather, if by any act of the co-owner in possession the value or utility of the property is diminished, then a co- owner out of possession can certainly seek an injunction to prevent the diminution of the value and utility of the property. If the acts of the co-owner in possession are detrimental to the interest of other co-owners, a co-owner out of possession can seek an injunction to prevent such act which is detrimental to his interest." 17. It is stated that injunction against co-owner could be granted only where acts of co-owner would diminish value and utility of property. In Karam Singh Vs. Lakhbir Kaur : 2011 (3) Civil Court cases, 162, it is held that where possession of all co-sharers is joint, relief of injunction cannot be sought by either of co-sharers and only relief which is available to co-sharer is to seek partition by metes and bounds. 18. Insofar as adverse possession, High Court of Allahabad in Abdul Salam & Ors. Vs. Imrana Suiddiqui & Ors., (2019) 134 ALR 54, in para no.40, has clarified about necessary facts required to be pleaded and proved namely : "40. 18. Insofar as adverse possession, High Court of Allahabad in Abdul Salam & Ors. Vs. Imrana Suiddiqui & Ors., (2019) 134 ALR 54, in para no.40, has clarified about necessary facts required to be pleaded and proved namely : "40. In order to arrive at a finding regarding adverse possession it is absolutely essential for a person raising such a pleas to plead and prove the following ingredients: a. on what date, he came into possession; b. what was the nature of his possession; c. whether the factum of possession was not known to the other party; d. how long his possession has continued; and e. his possession was open and undisturbed." On perusal of averments in plaint, it is seen that it is absolutely bereft of any such material particulars. 19. Such being case, when plaintiff has not sought relief of declaration of title by way of adverse possession or relief of partition by metes and bounds, whether suit in its present state would be maintainable or not would be an serious issue. 20. Under such circumstances, refusal to grant interim order by trial Court on reasons assigned by it would not call for interference. It is settled law that relief of injunction is a discretionary relief and scope for interference in appeal would be limited. Unless impugned order passed by trial Court suffers from palpable error or is untenable there cannot be any interference. 21. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Mehtab Khan Vs. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan & Others : (2013) 9 SCC 221 , has held that even if view taken is one of possible view and it would not call for interference. Trial Court has observed that plaintiff's claim would have to be established in a full fledged trial. Therefore, I do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order. In the result I pass following: ORDER Appeal is dismissed. Both parties are directed to co-operate for expedite disposal of suit.