Arun Bhansali, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.8.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Udaipur, whereby the application filed by the respondent No. 1 under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC has been partly accepted and appellants as well as respondents No. 2 to 5 have been restrained from transferring or creating encumbrance on the suit property without permission of the Court. However, the application qua respondents No. 6 to 12 has been rejected.

2. The respondent No. 1 - Smt. Laxmi Mehta filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction against the appellants and respondents No. 2 to 12 inter-alia with the averments that she along with appellants and respondents No. 1 to 4 were legal representatives of Late Prakash Mal Chatur; one Late Roshan Lal Chatur had three sons namely Manohar Lal, Parshavachand and Prakashmal; Manohar Lal had no issue, Parshavachand had two sons and Prakashmal had eight children; Late Roshan Lal Chatur had lot of properties, which remained in his possession and ownership during his life time, who died in February, 1962, the properties left by him remained joined; Prakashmal married Smt. Sugan Kanwar, who was mother of respondents No. 1 to 4 and after death of Sugan Kanwar, he married Smt. Suraj Kanwar, from whom he had the appellant as well as respondent No. 5 as children.

3. A suit was filed by Mahendra Kumar - respondent No. 2 son of Prakashmal seeking partition of properties left by Late Roshan Lal. The suit was registered as 242/1985, where after, during the pendency of the suit, there was compromise between the parties. Based on the compromise, ?rd property of Roshan Lal was given to Parshavachand ?rd property to Prakashmal and ?rd property was divided in six sons of Prakashmal, whereby every one got 1/18th property. It was then claimed that Prakashmal got the property, which was indicated in para 5 of the decree dated 25.4.1990, which decree was amended on 29.10.1990, wherein the properties indicated in para 5 were modified. It was claimed that the properties, which Prakashmal received were joint family properties and as the same have not been partitioned by metes and bounds and the plaintiff being one of the co-sharer is entitled to share in the property. It was claimed that in the previous suit filed by Mahendra Kumar, the plaintiff was not impleaded as party and in the suit property the plaintiff has got ?th share and all other legal representatives have ?th share. It was alleged that Late Smt. Suraj Kanwar wife of Prakashmal based on a will got the suit property recorded in her name in the revenue records and has squandered the property by transferring the same to other persons, the particulars of the transfers made were indicated in the plaint. It was claimed that the properties received by Prakashmal from Roshan Lal were joint family properties, in which the plaintiff has got a share.

4. Based on the said averments, relief was claimed that the property as indicated in para 6 of the plaint be partitioned by metes & bounds and the plaintiff be given separate ?th share in the suit property.

5. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC was filed with a prayer that during the pendency of the suit, the defendants be restrained from dealing with the suit property.

6. While the respondents No. 2 to 4 did not oppose the plea raised by the appellants, the appellants filed their written statement and vehemently opposed the submissions. It was inter-alia claimed that the properties in question were self acquired property of Roshan Lal and after his death, his three sons become absolute owners in terms of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (the H.S. Act). Though, the grand son had no right in the property of Late Roshan Lal, in the suit filed by Mahendra Kumar, there was a compromise and as part of the compromise ?rd property came to the share of Parsharvachand ?rd property came to the share of Prakashmal ?rd property was given to six