Feeling aggrieved by the order dtd. 12th May. 2000. passed in Civil Suit No. 3A/2000. by Distt. Judge, Vidisha. where under. an application U/O 39 R. 1 and 2 of CPC. has been dismissed, plaintiff/appellants have filed this appeal seeking redress and praying for issuance of temporary injunction in their favour. Appellants/plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration of their 1/2 share in ancestral joint Hindu family property. It is alleged that some of the properties were divided among six family members on 14.6.1970, however, there had been no partition among the heirs of deceased Bhagmal. Defendant No. 1, being elderly member of family got all the properties mutated in his name and is also In possession of most of the properties. The learned trial Court after going through the various documents filed on behalf of parties, came to the conclusion that the parties, are already in-respective possession of the properties falling in their share on-account of previous partition and had further held that one of the house occupied by the plaintiff has not been mentioned in the list of properties, proposed to be partitioned. In the circumstances, suit for partial partition is not maintainable. Further, when it is prima facie established that defendant No. 1 Ghanshyam Das is in actual possession of the agricultural land, the question of issuance of any temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff does not arise. The learned counsel for the appellant has only stressed the need of restraining defendant/respondent from disposing of the property so that the cause of suit may not be frustrated. I am of the opinion that in case if any subsequent transfer is effected after institution of the suit, it becomes automatically illegal, against the plaintiff. In the circumstances there is no need to modify the impugned order. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.