IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.570 of 2004 SMT.ASHA SINGH, d/o. late Bhairavi Nandan Singh, w/o. Rajesh Kumar Singh, r/o. Mohalla-Rajopatti Jai Prakash Path, Sitamarhi Town, P.O.+ P.S.+ District- Sitamarhi. ----- Plaintiff/Appellant. Versus 1. MOST.SARSWATI DEVI, w/o. late Bhairvi Nandan Singh, r/o. village and P.O. Kuari Madan, P.S. and Anchal Majorganj, Distt. Sitamarhi. 2. Most. Lall Mukhi Devi, w/o. late Bhairvi Nandan Singh, r/o. village and P.O. Kauri Madan, P.S. and Anchal Major Ganj, District- Sitamarhi. 3. Sudha Kumari, D/o. late Bhairvi Nandan Singh, r/o. village and P.O. Kuari Madan, P.S. and Anchal Major ganj, District- Sitamarhi. 4. Smt. Gyankala Devi, D/o. late Bhairvi Nandan Singh, w/o. Dr. Brajesh Kumar Singh, R/o. villalge Shahpur, P.S. and P.O. Sonbarsa, District- Saharsa. 5. Smt. Usha Devi, D/o. late Bhairvi Nandan Singh, w/o. Sri Shivjee Singh, r/o. village- Mamarakhpur, P.O. Sonoul Mohdia, P.S. Majorganj, District- Sitamarhi. 6. Smt. Suman Devi, D/o. late Bhairvi Nandan Singh, w/o. Bishwajeet Singh, r/o. Mohalla-Gopalpur, Main Court Road, Motihari, P.O. and P.S. Motihari, District-East Champaran. ----- Defendant/Respondents. 9 12.12.2008 This appeal is against the order dated 29.09.2004 passed by the Subordinate Judge-I, Sitamarhi in Partition Suit No.258 of 2003, wherein a petition under Order 39 Rules-1 & 2 filed by the appellant/plaintiff with 2 the prayer for injuncting the defendant Nos.1 to 4 in alienating the suit property was refused. The plaintiff filed the suit claiming 1/6th share and according to the plaintiff herself the defendant No.1/respondent and defendant No.4/respondent, who were respectively the step mother and step sister of the plaintiff had 1/6th share each. The defendants particularly the defendant Nos.1-4 pleaded in their W.S. that the plaintiff was not the daughter of Lal Mukhi Devi (defendant No.2), the second wife of Bhairvi Nandan Singh but she was Gayatri Devi, sister of Lalmukhi Devi and thus she (plaintiff) had no right in the family property and she was not entitled to file claim in the partition suit. During hearing learned counsel for the respondents referred to the copy of plaint under Annexure- 2 and pointed out that the suit property involves landed property involving an area of 250 acres. It was also submitted that the defendant No.1 Saraswati Devi against whom injunction has been sought is an old lady aged 74 years and she is ailing person and she is dependant on usufructs of the property in her share and that she does not 3 intend to dispose of the property beyond her share. It was also submitted that for extreme legal necessity only a small piece of land i.e., 56 decimals was sold by her on 16.09.2004 and besides that there has been any other alienation by her. Learned counsel for the appellant is not able to show that any other piece of land has been sold by the defendant No.1 or defendant No.4. Learned counsel referred to Section 52 of the T.P.Act, where under rule of lis pendens is not to stop or annul all voluntary transfers effected by the parties to the suit, but is only to render it subservient to the rights of parties thereto under the decree or order, which may be passed subsequently in that suit. Thus, according to this rule also even if any transfer is made any of the parties to the suit it will be subservient to the decree passed by the Court finally. It is also the common rule that the property sold by one of the co- sharers under a partition suit is adjusted against the share of that coparcener and the purchaser cannot claim anything more in the joint property than what falling in the share of the co-parcener. 4 Thus hearing both sides, I find that any case of destruction, damage or alienation of property is not being made out at this stage. In such view of the matters, I find no ground for passing the order of injunction restraining the defendants as prayed by the plaintiff/appellant. The court-below has rightly refused. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Mkr. (C.M. Prasad, J.)