: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.94 OF 2010 Bhagabai Dattu Gopale & Ors. ... Appellants V/s. Kiran Babusha Gundal & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.S.A. Sawant for Appellant Mr.Amit Borkar i/b for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: FEBRUARY 8, 2010 P.C.: 1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 12.11.2009 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune. Appellant No.1 is defendant No.1 in the Special Civil Suit No.1094 of 2009. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 are the defendant Nos.6 and 7 before the trial Court. Appellant No.1 contends that he has a share in the suit property alongwith the defendants’ sons. The suit property is joint family property. Appellant No.1 has agreed to sell his rights in respect of the suit property to appellant Nos.2 and 3. 2. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs claiming partition of the suit property. 3. The trial Court has while allowing the application for interim relief, restrained : 2 : defendant No.1 from transferring the suit property in favour of appellant Nos.2 and 3 on the basis of the agreement to sell dated 13.4.2008. The Court has further restrained defendant Nos.1, 6 and 7 from creating third party rights in the suit property till the disposal of the suit. Furthermore, the trial Court has directed defendant Nos.6 and 7 not to disturb the plaintiffs’ possession of the suit property. 4. The learned advocate for the appellants takes exception to this order and contends that a co-sharer cannot be restrained from disturbing the plaintiffs’ possession over the suit property. This submission of the learned advocate is unsustainable. The trial Court has advisedly directed only defendant Nos.6 and 7 i.e. appellant Nos.2 and 3 not to disturb the plaintiffs’ possession over the suit property since they are third parties. In my view, the trial Court has committed no error in directing the appellants not to create any third party rights since the property must be protected during the pendency of the partition suit. 5. Appeal dismissed. In view of this, nothing remains in civil application No.144 of 2010 and the same is also dismissed.