JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned District Judge, Churu dated September 24, 1993 by which he has allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the learned Munsiff, Churu dated September 09, 1992 dismissing the application moved under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. and has restrained the defendant-petitioners from transferring the disputed property to any person and to maintain status quo in respect thereof. The facts giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus. 2. The plaintiff-petitioners filed a suit for injunction against the defendants with the averments, in short, that a plot of land measuring 750 Sq yds existed in Ward No. 21, Churu. It belonged to their ancestor Nathu Ram. After his death it devolved upon his six sons jointly. The plaintiff No. 1 Durga Dutt and defendant No. 1 Heera Lal are his sons. It has not been partitioned so far. The defendant Heeralal has sold a part of it to his wife Premvati (defendant No. 2) and she intends to further sell it. All the six sons have right and interest in the entire plot and none has a right to transfer in any way any part of it. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. was moved. The defendants seriously opposed it. After hearing the parties, the learned Munsiff dismissed it holding that it is prima facie established that partition has been effected in between the sons of late Nathu Ram and the defendants have a right to transfer the portion of the disputed land which has come in their share. On appeal, it was set aside as said above. 3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the defendant petitioners that without any good ground the learned District Judge, Churu has set aside the order of the learned Munsiff and has thus committed material irregularity and illegality in the exercise of his jurisdiction. There is no force in this contention. The defendant-petitioners' case is that after the death of Pattedar Nathu Ram his widow effected partition of the patta land (disputed land) amongst all his sons about 32 years ago. By separate possession over different portions of joint property, it cannot be presumed that partition had taken place and in pursuance thereof various co-sharers had come in exclusive possession thereof. The defendant-petitioners' case is that after the death of Pattedar Nathu Ram his widow effected partition of the patta land (disputed land) amongst all his sons about 32 years ago. By separate possession over different portions of joint property, it cannot be presumed that partition had taken place and in pursuance thereof various co-sharers had come in exclusive possession thereof. Admittedly, the defendant-petitioners had not filed any proof of partition by meets and bounds. Oral partition is permissible in law ( AIR 1955 S.C. 481 , AIR 1966 S.C. 292 , 1836 and AIR 1976 S.C. 807 ). But it is a question of fact to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case. As such it cannot be said that the learned District Judge, Churu committed any material irregularity or illegality in setting aside the order of the learned Munsiff and in restraining the defendant-petitioners from transferring portion of the joint land which is in their possession. Of course, they have a right to transfer the share which they have in the joint property. They cannot transfer any specific portion of it claiming to be its sole owner. 4. Accordingly, the revision petition is summarily dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******