Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The plaintiffs are in revision petition aggrieved against the orders passed by the Courts below, whereby their application for grant of ad-interim injunction, was declined. 2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Defendant Nos.7 to 9 have sold their entire share to the plaintiffs on 7.6.2002 and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to protect their possession in respect of the portion falling to the share of Defendant Nos.7 to 9 in an instrument of partition finalised on 29.4.1999. 3. The learned first Appellate Court has found that Sanad takseem i. e. Instrument of Partition was prepared and execution with regard to the partition is still pending. It has been further found that the whole of the disputed land, was not allotted to Defendant Nos.7 to 9 in partition proceedings, therefore, it was concluded that the possession of the disputed property will be given to Despondent Nos.1, 7, 8 and 9 in execution of the partition proceedings. 4. Since the petitioners are alleging the purchase of the share of defendant Nos.7 to 9, therefore, the petitioners as successors of defendant Nos.7 to 9 would be entitled to the same rights in the instrument of partition as Defendant Nos.7 to 9 were having. Since the execution in respect of the partition proceedings is pending, the petitioners are not entitled to seek injunction restraining the defendants from executing the order of partition. 5. However, it is made clear that if the Revenue Authorities find that the petitioners are in possession of any part of the suit property as purchasers and falling to the share of Defendant Nos.7 to 9, pursuant to the partition finalised on 29.4.1999, the petitioners would be entitled to protect their possession. Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.