IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2616 OF 2010 Between:- Bhumana Venkateswarlu …Petitioner A n d Bhumana Narasaiah and 4 others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2616 OF 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 16-04-2010 in C.M.A.No.2 of 2008, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama, wherein the said appeal filed by the respondents herein, was allowed and the order dated 13-10-2008 in I.A.No.376 of 2008 in O.S.No.113 of 2008, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Nandigama, granting temporary injunction was set aside. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed the suit for declaration of title in respect of plaint schedule property of Ac.1-13 cents situate in Sanagapadu village and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment thereof. Along with the suit, he filed I.A.No.376 of 2008 for temporary injunction. The respondents filed counter opposing the application. The trial Court, by order dated 13-10-2008, allowed I.A.No.376 of 2008 and granted temporary injunction as prayed for, holding that the documents filed by the plaintiff prima facie show his possession and enjoyment and the balance of convenience is in his favour. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed CMA.No.2 of 2008. The learned Senior Civil Judge, by the impugned order, allowed the CMA and set aside the order of injunction granted by the trial Court. Hence, the present revision by the plaintiff. 4. According to the plaintiff, the schedule property originally belonged to late Bhumana Rajamma, who purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 26-11-1958. She had two sons and two daughters. During her last days, she resided with her son, the plaintiff, and out of love and affection she bequeathed the suit property in favour of the plaintiff under a Will dated 14-07- 2003. On the death of Rajamma, the plaintiff came into possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants without any manner of right have been disputing the title of the plaintiff and threatening to interfere with his possession. The defendants contend that Bhumana Rajamma executed a settlement deed dated 19-11-1996 in favour of her daughter Anasuyamma reserving life interest and after the death of Anasuyamma, her brother and sisters became the legal heirs and inherited the property and came into possession and the plaintiff created the Will and filed the suit with false allegations. According to the defendants, Rajamma had only life interest in the suit property as per settlement deed dated 19-11-1996 and she has no right to execute a Will in respect of the schedule property. 5. In support of his claim, the plaintiff filed Will-Ex.P-1 and cist receipt-Ex.P-2 and title deed-Ex.P-3 and pattedar passbook-Ex.P-4. Ex.P-5 is the death certificate of Rajamma. On the other hand, the respondent filed Ex.R-1 certified copy of the settlement deed. 6. The plaintiff’s claim is solely based on Will-Ex.P-1 alleged to have been executed by Rajamma. The defendants are disputing the said Will and contending that the same is forged and fabricated. As rightly observed by the trial Court, the genuineness or otherwise of the Will has got to be adjudicated upon during the course of trial after necessary evidence is adduced in that regard, but not at this stage. The execution of the settlement deed-Ex.R-1 by Rajamma in favour of her daughter Anasuyamma in the year 1996 reserving life interest in herself is also not disputed by the plaintiff. 7. Admittedly, Anasuyamma pre-deceased Rajamma. The trial Court granted temporary injunction in view of Exs.P-2 cist receipt and Ex.P-4 pattedar pass book, which according to the trial Court sufficiently established prima facie case of possession and balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff. The appellate Court reversed the finding on the ground that the plaintiff failed to establish prima facie any right or title as Rajamma had no competence to execute the Will even if it is true inasmuch as she also gifted the property under Ex.R-1 in favour of her daughter Anasuyamma reserving only life interest and subsequent to the death of Anasuyamma she did not file any suit for cancellation of Ex.R-1. The appellate Court also noticed that the defendants have already filed a suit for partition of the suit property vide O.S.No.70 of 2008, but the plaintiff has not made a mention of it and suppressed the same. The appellate Court also noticed that as seen from the legal notices exchanged between the parties, which were filed by way of additional evidence in the appeal, the defendants stated that Anasuyamma had no legal heirs as she died issueless and her husband was divorced. The plaintiff in his reply did not state anything about the legal representatives of Anasuyamma, but in the course of arguments stated that the husband of Anasuyamma is alive and he is the sole legal heir, but in the present suit neither of the parties have referred to the existence of legal representatives of Anasuyamma. 8. Be that as it may, as the plaintiffs claim is solely based on the alleged Will said to have been executed by Rajamma and the genuineness of the said Will having been denied by the defendants, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has shown any prima facie title in his favour at this stage. The claim of the plaintiff entirely depends on the question as to whether or not the Will propounded by him is true and even if true whether the testatrix had any competence to execute the Will in view of the settlement deed already executed by her in favour of her daughter Anasuyamma and as to whether or not Anusuyamma left behind any legal heirs. Till such time the plaintiff is able to establish his claim, which he can do only during the trial, it cannot be said that there is either prima facie case or balance of convenience in his favour for grant of a temporary injunction. Further, it is also noticed that the plaintiff has not disclosed and resorted to suppression of certain material facts in the pleadings. The impugned order of the appellate Court, allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of temporary injunction granted by the trial Court, does not, therefore, call for any interference. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Interim stay stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 23rd February, 2011 Lrkm.