- (1.)THIS second appeal by the defendant in a suit under sec. 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act concurrently decreed against them by the lower courts has been filed under the following circumstances -
(2.)RAMBABU, the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit with the averment that he was a joint tenant in cultivatory possession with the appellants to the extent of one fourth share since Smt. 2011 in Khasra Nos. 371, 373, 383, 384, 385, 386, 400 and 401, that the respondents held a Panchayat and insisted on the respondent to give up his share in the suit land in exchange for an equal share in another well. . This was not acceptable to the respondent, whereupon the appellants intimidated him with forceful eviction from his share in the suit land. The plaintiff respondent therefore, prayed for the issue of a permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellants from interfering with the plaintiff-respondent's joint cultivatory possession over it. The suit was resisted by the defendants. The trial court after recording the evidence of the parties decreed it. In appeal also the defendants did not meet with any success. In this second appeal filed before us one of the main contentions is that the present suit was not maintainable on the ground that a co-tenant whose share was not specifically demarcated in a joint holding could not bring a suit for injunction against the other co-tenants without at first seeking partition of the holding jointly cultivated by them. It was also urged that the jurisdiction of a revenue court to entertain a suit of this nature was restricted to the conditions given in sec. 188 of the Act. The first contention does not appear to be well founded. It is well established that if a co-sharer abuses the joint property or otherwise infringes the right of his co-sharers the later can have all or any one of the following remedies suited to the occasion, namely - (a) partition; (b) declaration of right, damages and amount of compensation ; (c) decree for joint possession and (d) injunction. By partition the parties put an end to a further recurrence of disagreement or mischief arising from joint user. This is usually regarded the best. Similarly by instituting a suit for declaration of his share, and assessment of damages for an infringement of right causing injury, as by wrongful cultivation etc. , or a suit for joint possession is also permissible under the law. But none of these debar an aggrieved co-sharer to ask for an injunction where in the case of joint cultivation there has been an exclusion or ouster or denial of his title, from possession or enjoyment of the joint property. A suit of this nature is provided under Sec. 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Both the lower courts came to a finding that the plaintiff was a recorded co-tenant in possession from Smt. 2011 to the extent of one fourth share in this joint holding. This finding is based on the statements of the witnesses examined by the plaintiff. The witnesses produced by the appellant have also in so many words testified to this fact. There is also a finding to the effect that the appellants had threatened the respondent with consequences if he tried to cultivate his share in the joint holding. This clearly means a threatened invasion on the rights of the respondent by preventing him from entering and cultivating his share in the suit land. Accordingly we are of the opinion that the present suit was rightly decreed by the lower courts and the concurrent decision under appeal does not call for any interference. In the result the appeal shall stand dismissed. .
;