ORDER : D.V.S.S.Somayajulu, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed questioning the order dated 03.02.2023 in I.A.No.637 of 2022 in O.S.No.33 of 2022. By this order impugned, an interim injunction that was granted earlier has been made absolute till the disposal of the suit. 2. This Court has heard Sri P.Sri Raghuram, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants as instructed by D.Anil Kumar and Sri M.R.S Srinivas for the respondents. 3. Sri P.Sri Raghuram, learned senior counsel argued the matter at length. According to him, the doctrine of lis pendens would apply if property is transferred during the pendency of the suit, but he states that something more is necessary for the Court to interfere and to grant an interim injunction. It is his contention that in the case on hand, there is no proof to show that the property which is now claimed and which is injuncted against is joint family property. He also raises a serious issue about the conduct of the party and states that the same should be examined in depth before an injunction is granted since it is an equitable relief. It is his contention that the petitioner in whose favour property was already settled has filed a suit on a ground that there is still some joint more family property left over. He points out that the counter affidavit and the additional counter affidavit filed show that the petitioners’ father himself has settled the property by way of different documents in favour of the petitioners and others. It is also stated clearly that the petitioners colluded with respondent Nos.2 and 4, received their share of the property either in the name or in the name of the children and are falsely contending that there are joint family properties. It is submitted that this important aspect was totally overlooked. It is also pointed out that the petitioner No.1 is claiming 7/36th share in the property and the party who is in possession of 29/36th share is injuncted against and is prevented from enjoying the property which form the bulk of the property. He also relies on the fact that the trial Court in the course of the order has wrongly noted that when the property is in danger of being ‘wasted’. He also relies on the fact that the trial Court in the course of the order has wrongly noted that when the property is in danger of being ‘wasted’. He contends that the issue of wastage etc., would only arise in a receiver application and cannot be considered under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC., while granting an injunction. For the appellants, K.Ravi Prasad Reddy and another v. G.Giridhar and another, 2022 (2) ALD 357 , is also cited in support of their contentions. 4. In reply to this, Sri M.R.S. Srinivas, learned counsel also argues the matter at length. He submits that initially a settlement deed was in fact executed, but the property was again transferred. It is his contention that in the suit there are serious issues to be tried and that the trial Court will have to decide on evidence whether or not there is joint family property and if it is available for partition. He points out that till the said issues are determined, the existing state of affairs has to be preserved and that the trial Court did not commit any error in passing the impugned order. He also points out that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were also directed by the said order not to alienate any property. It is his contention that the present appellants stated in the course of the CMA that no relief is claimed against respondent Nos.2 and 4. Therefore, it is his contention that only a part of the order is being challenged and not the other half. This is impermissible as per him. 5. In rejoinder, learned senior counsel for the appellants also submits that any transfer or sale can always be subject to the result of the final order in the case and that there are no equities in favour of the plaintiffs in the suit. When larger extent is prevented from being enjoyed, the Court can always grant order making any sale subject to the order of the Court instead of granting a blanket order of injunction. 6. This Court after considering the submissions made notices that in the trial Court, a suit is filed for partition and for allotment of 7/36th share in favour of the 1st respondent/plaintiff. There is a claim for decree based on profits also. The property is described in different schedules. 6. This Court after considering the submissions made notices that in the trial Court, a suit is filed for partition and for allotment of 7/36th share in favour of the 1st respondent/plaintiff. There is a claim for decree based on profits also. The property is described in different schedules. The stand of the appellants is borne out by their counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit. It is stated that the plaintiffs’ father has settled the properties in favour of the family members by executing sale deeds etc. It is also mentioned that in the Will of May 2015, it is clearly mentioned that he had already settled the properties in favour of the daughters and the remaining property was orally partitioned between him and his son, who is the brother of the plaintiff and the other defendants. It is stated that the plaintiff/1st respondent is enjoying the property after the said settlement. In the additional counter affidavit filed, further details are furnished and tabular statements are also annexed. It is clearly mentioned that the father of the plaintiff has performed the marriages of his daughters and had also settled some properties as ‘pasupu kumkuma’. It is also mentioned that the brother also has executed a Will dated 18.10.2019 bequeathing his properties in favour of the daughter of the 3rd respondent by name G.Vani. It is also mentioned that a suit O.S.No.39 of 2022 was filed by the said G.Vani for the relief of declaration etc., and for other reliefs, which is also pending on the file of the said Court. Therefore, it is ultimately concluded that the exclusive share of the brother is now tried to be grabbed by the plaintiff by filing collusive suit. 7. These facts are being set out because this Court is of the opinion that there are very seriously triable issues in the present suit. In fact, in the impugned order, the trial Court touched upon some of the major issues that are raised. The trial Court noticed that as per Ex.R.1, some items of the property are bequeathed to the 1st respondent, but not the remaining items shown in item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. Similarly, item 3 is also bequeathed to respondent No.1 under the ‘A’ schedule property of respondent No.1. The trial Court noticed that as per Ex.R.1, some items of the property are bequeathed to the 1st respondent, but not the remaining items shown in item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. Similarly, item 3 is also bequeathed to respondent No.1 under the ‘A’ schedule property of respondent No.1. However, the Judge noticed that there is no whisper in the documents relied on by respondent Nos.1 and 3 in respect of the other items of the property. Therefore, the Court held that the documents relied upon by the respondents do not appear to cover all the items/properties of the deceased-father. The Judge concluded by saying that except Ex.R.1 there is no other document to show that there is a partition between the father and the brothers of the plaintiff or proof to show that such properties are being exclusively enjoyed. He also noticed that there is no document filed to show that G.Vani was bequeathed certain property as per the Will dated 18.10.2019. In fact, the appendix of evidence does not show that the Will dated 18.10.2019 was actually marked as a document. In the trial Court, it is referred in the counter, but it does not appear to have been filed. The Judge also came to the conclusion that whether the father died intestate or not has to be decided in the suit since the plaintiff is not admitting the same. He noticed that the extents of the properties that were settled in favour of the daughters were also not very clearly and categorically mentioned in the pleadings. In this circumstances, the trial Court came to the conclusion that there are necessary ingredients for grant of an injunction are made out. Although he used the word ‘property is in danger of being wasted’; that by itself should not preclude this Court from looking into the other aspects of the case. 8. In the opinion of this Court, there are seriously triable issues which need to be determined in the course of the trial. Whether the property that is included in the plaint schedule is joint family property or not, which is available for partition whether there has been a settlement in favour of the petitioner and other children; where there has been an oral partition between the son of respondent No.1 and others is also to be determined in the course of the trial. Creating third party interest, inducting the third party by way of sale or otherwise would in the opinion of this Court complicate the matters further. The preservation of the property as it exists is therefore necessary and in the interest of all concerned. This Court is therefore of the opinion that the trial Court did not commit any error in passing of the impugned order. 9. It is however, made clear that if there is a necessity or a need for further sale of any property; an appropriate application can always be moved before the trial Court and it is always open for the trial Court to decide the said application on its own merits. 10. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is therefore dismissed as this Court does not find any error in the order impugned. It is made clear that opinions expressed are for the disposal of this appeal only. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.