is quite tangible to note that the defendants being the surviving male co-parceners have gone to an extent of disputing the possession of the widow. What is forthcoming from the records that the defendants are claiming exclusive possession. If plaintiff has come up with a specific case that there is already severance in the family and she is claiming possession over the half extent in the ancestral properties, nothing prevented the defendants to institute a suit for partition as plaintiff being a widow of male co-parcener, is entitled to half share in the ancestral properties through her husband Nanjalingappa. Though in an injunction suit, there cannot be an enquiry to ascertain whether there is severance in the family, however, the evidence adduced by the plaintiff clearly gives an indication that the widow of Nanjalingappa is in possession of the properties allotted to her share. The Appellate Court has rightly drawn adverse inference against the defendants herein for having not instituted a partition suit till this date. If it is claimed that there is no partition by metes and bounds, the rights of widow of the
