MITHILESH KUMARI Vs. SHARDA AND 8 OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Mishra appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1.

(2.) The petitioner instituted original suit no. 457 of 2011 for cancellation of will dated 20.3.1972 registered on 14.11.1977 (dates wrongly mentioned in the copy of the plaint annexed with the petition, as 24.3.1972 and 6.11.1977) and for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the properties, which are subject matter of the will. The will in question was allegedly executed by Keshav Deo father of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the will in question is a forged document. The petitioner also made an application for temporary injunction which was opposed by the defendant-respondents. The trial court by detailed order dated 1.8.2013 rejected the application for temporary injunction after recording a specific finding that the petitioner could not prove the prima-facie case in her favour. Neither balance of convenience lies with her, nor she is likely to suffer irreparable loss and injury in case the injunction application is rejected. The order, has been affirmed with the dismissal of the appeal by order and judgment dated 7.5.2015.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, made a statement before the court that although the suit was with regard to all the properties covered by the will, but the petitioner was claiming injunction only with regard to plot no. 211 over which a temple exists. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the courts below have erred in rejecting the injunction application filed by the petitioner by placing reliance on the will in question whereunder the right of management has been given to respondent no. 1.