plaintiffs and the defendants and after passage of time, the hut fell down and the lane, namely the extent of 888 Sq.Ft. has been demarcated as a passage, and that the plaintiffs and the defendants have been enjoying the said passage. During the pendency of the suit, the property had been sold to one K.K.Kumar, who is the second plaintiff, i.e. the second respondent in both these Second Appeals and he has purchased the property 'lis-pendens'. He further submitted that even assuming for the sake of argument without admitting that the title is with the plaintiffs by virtue of Ex.A-4, there was jont possession with the plaintiffs and the defendants. Admittedly, there is no suit for declaration and hence, the suit for bare injunction itself is not maintainable. He submitted that the land now is used as a passage and as could be seen from paragraph 6 of the trial Court judgment, during the pendency of the litigation, the property has been purchased by the second plaintiff. As there is no partition by metes and bounds and that there is no title or document to show that the plaintiffs are the owner of the property, the plaintiffs would not be entitled to any relief. He further submitted that in Ex.A-12 itself (legal notice, dated 21.10.1989), the plaintiffs have stated about the shares of the co-owners. The suit was filed on 15.09.1992. The assessment order clearly states that the plaintiffs and the defendants are joint owners, and there cannot be any estoppel against the co-owners of the property and that the plaintiffs cannot seek any relief against the co-owners, even though the second plaintiff has purchased the property from one of the co-owners. Unless and until the property is partitioned or the suit for declaration is sought for, the relief claimed by the second plaintiff who is the second respondent in both the appeals, is not maintainable and the suit will have to be dismissed.
