HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.238 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appellant herein filed O.S.No.88 of 1997 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, against the respondent, her mother in law, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property, a house. According to her, the house was constructed by her husband late Srinivasulu upon a plot assigned to him by the Government through Ex.A-1. It was stated that the property has devolved upon her exclusively and that she is in possession and enjoyment of the house ever since the death of her husband. She complained that the respondent is trying to dispossess her. The respondent, on the one hand, filed written statement opposing the suit. She pleaded that the suit schedule property was acquired by her under an agreement of sale, dated 04-11-1979, marked as Ex.B-1, that she constructed the house, and is residing therein. 2. The trial Court dismissed the suit through judgment, dated 18-09-2006. A.S. No.182 of 2006 filed by the appellant in the Court of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore, was dismissed on 12-11-2010. Hence, this Second Appeal. 3. Heard Sri K. Someswara Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K.S. Gopalkrishnan, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: “1. Whether the grant of patta to plaintiff’s husband is true? 2. Whether the sale on 4.1.1979 by Pullareddy to the defendant is true? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for?” 5. The appellant deposed as PW-1 and she filed Exs.A-1 to A- 1. On behalf of the respondent, DWs-1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-38 were filed. The suit and the appeal were dismissed. 6. The dispute is between the appellant and her mother-in-law. According the version of the appellant, the plot on which the suit house was constructed was assigned to her husband under Ex.A-1. The respondent on the other hand, pleaded that on the death of the husband of the appellant, the property would devolve equally upon the appellant and the respondent as both of them being Class-I heirs. In case the appellant wanted exclusive possession of the property in its entirety or in part as per law, she ought to have filed the suit for partition or the one for declaration. The respondent also comes under the description of a co-owner being the Class-I heir of her son along with the appellant. 7. It is settled principle of law that a suit for injunction cannot be maintained against the co-owner. Unfortunately, this aspect was not taken note of by the trial Court and the lower appellate Court. The matter was decided on merits. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the fact. 8. The Second Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J November 18, 2011. KTL