JUDGMENT 1. The applicants/plaintiffs had filed this application under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules read with Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C. for grant of injunction restraining R3 to R6 or their men, agents, servants, representatives or assigns from in any manner alienating or encumbering or dealing with the Schedule 'A' of the suit property pending disposal of the suit. 2. The applicants/plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration that the settlement deed dated 15.8.2008 registered as document No.4051 of 2008 as null and void, non-est and not binding on plaintiffs and for a declaration that the sale deed dated 13.6.2011 registered as document No.2196 of 2011 is null and void and non-est in the eye of law. 3. The applicants/plaintiffs also asked for damages of Rs.50,00,000/-(Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) against the defendants and also pray for partition of the Schedule 'B' property. 4. It is not in dispute that the settlement deed dated 15.08.2008 was executed by the 3rd applicant/3rd plaintiff in favour of the first respondent/first defendant. The suit has been filed on 28.11.2012, after the property was sold by the registered owner in favour of defendant nos.3 to 7. 5. It is the case of the applicants/plaintiffs that the first and second plaintiffs are the daughters of the third plaintiff; whereas, the first defendant is her grant-daughter, borne through her son Sherry, whereas the 2nd defendant is her daughter-in-law. 6. The property was purchased by the third plaintiff along with Mr.Achuthan Kutty and Mrs.Upalakshy jointly, measuring 10 grounds and 2185 sq.feet, vide registered sale deed dated 12.6.1958. The property was thereafter partitioned on 3.11.1958. The partition deed was duly registered. 7. It is the case of the applicants/plaintiffs that the 3rd plaintiff became the absolute owner of 5525 sq.ft of land, wherein she had put up construction and was in possession and enjoyment of the same, as absolute owner. 8. Once it is admitted by the plaintiffs/applicants, that the third plaintiff is the absolute owner of the schedule property, who had executed a Settlement Deed dated 15.08.2008, in pursuance to which the property was sold to defendant nos.3 to 6 after four years of settlement between the parties, it cannot be said, that any prima facie case is made out to seek injunction. 9. 9. The facts pleaded in the suit itself show, that it is after the sale to third parties, that the daughters and mother woke up to challenge the settlement deed, on the plea that third plaintiff was in a state of shock due to the sudden demise of her son. This plea prima facie does not seem to be bonafide, as admittedly the settlement deed was executed on 15.08.2008, whereas the suit has been filed after sale to third parties on 28.11.2012. 10. Be that as it may be, it is yet to be determined whether the settlement deed was executed bona fide or it is null and void or not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs/applicants. 11. Once the factum of execution of settlement deed as well as the ownership of the third plaintiff is not disputed, it cannot be said that the applicants/plaintiffs have any prima facie case to restrain the subsequent vendees from using the property purchased from the registered owner. 12. Even otherwise, the right of the plaintiffs are duly protected under the principle of lis pendens. It is now well settled that pendente lite the purchaser cannot raise the plea of bona fide purchaser nor can claim 3rd party right. 13. The plaintiffs/applicants therefore have failed to make out any prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in favour of defendant nos.3 to 7. The plaintiffs/applicants are also not going to suffer any irreparable loss or injury, if the injunction prayed for is not granted. 14. No merit. Dismissed. 15. No costs.