Judgment :- VINOD K. SHARMA, J. 1. The plaintiff / applicant has filed a suit for partition, for separate possession of ½ share in the suit schedule property. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that defendant no.1 has transferred a part of property exceeding her share in favour of defendant no.2, who has further mortgaged the property to defendant no.3. The plaintiff has also prayed for grant of mense profit against defendant no.1 for use and occupation of share of property, belonging to the plaintiff / applicant. 3. Along with the suit, the plaintiff / applicant has filed this application for injunction, restraining defendants / respondents from in any way dealing with the property or altering the status of the property shown in the Schedule-B properties with the application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant referred to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to contend that the applicant / plaintiff is entitled to injunction against alienation of property, pending suit, except with the permission of this Court. 5. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act reads as under: "52. Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto During the pendency in any Court having authority within the limits of India excluding the State of Jamma and Kashmir or established beyond such limits by the Central Government of any suit or proceedings which is not collusive and in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the Court and on such terms as it may impose." 6. The reading of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, reproduced above, shows that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is totally misconceived. Transfers pending suit are hit by the principles of "lis pendens", therefore, no irreparable loss or injury can be caused to the applicant in case injunction is not granted. 7. Defendants are admittedly registered owners of the property, therefore defendants cannot be restrained from dealing with their property, pending suit, specially when rights of the applicants / plaintiffs are protected under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 8. 7. Defendants are admittedly registered owners of the property, therefore defendants cannot be restrained from dealing with their property, pending suit, specially when rights of the applicants / plaintiffs are protected under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 8. The balance of convenience also cannot be said to be in favour of the applicant / plaintiff, as the applicant / plaintiff is only entitled to half share in the schedule property, therefore, the applicant / plaintiff does not claim half share, which is said to have been sold by defendant no.1. 9. It is settled law, that even sale of specified area by the co-sharer is deemed to be sale of his share, which is subject to final partition. 10. No merits. Dismissed. No costs.