WPMS No. 979 of 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Mr. Pawan Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the respondents. Admittedly from the record and from the statement made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the petitioner’s father left behind a will in favour of the petitioner’s mother and, based on such will, it is alleged that the defendant No.1 who is the petitioner’s mother is trying to dispose of the property to a third person. Consequently, the petitioner filed a suit for injunction in which initially the defendant was restrained from disposing of the property but, in a miscellaneous appeal, the said order was set aside. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition. The mere fact that the petitioner admits the issuance of a will in favour of the petitioner’s mother, the said property becomes the absolute property of defendant No.1 and petitioner cannot claim any right on the said property merely because he was the son of the deceased testator. These facts on the face of the record clearly indicate no prima-facie case for grant of injunction. The writ petition is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 13.08.2010 Shiv