Petitioner Counsel :- Ravindra Kumar Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Suit was filed by the plaintiffpetitioner to restrain the defendant respondent 1st set from interfering in his possession over the land and constructions standing thereon, which is alleged to have been purchased by her from defendantrespondent no. 5. An application for temporary injunction was also moved. Trial court dismissed the application on the finding that the name of all the parties is recorded in the khatauni as co sharers and there is absolutely no prima facie evidence brought on record by the plaintiffpetitioner, which may go to show that land on which injunction was being claimed, was allotted in her share or any partition has ever took place. The petitioner went up in appeal, which has also been dismissed. The lower appellate court, apart from affirming the findings recorded by the trial court, has also recorded a finding that the plaintiffpetitioner has claimed injunction over 67 decimal of land which she alleged to have purchased and even herself was not very sure that on how much area, the injunction was being claimed. Thus, in view of the fact that both the courts below have held that in the absence of any evidence being brought on record with respect to partition between the parties, no illegality appears to have been committed in refusing to grant temporary injunction against a cosharer. The writ petition, accordingly, fails and stands dismissed. 25.01.2010 VKS/ WP 2762/10