( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 13-11-2000 on the file of the Agent to Government, Khammam.

( 2 ) THE Agent to Government dismissed the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner under Order 39, Rule 1, CPC seeking temporary injunction against the respondent.

( 3 ) BEFORE adverting to the question that falls for consideration, it may be necessary to briefly notice the relevant facts :the petitioner is the plaintiff in the main suit. The petitioner and the husband of the respondent-defendant are brothers and they are sons of one late Vasya. The said Vasya died on 12-1-1994. It is the case of the petitioner that his father during his lifetime has acquired the suit schedule land and was the absolute owner and possessor of the same. It is also his case that his father late Vasya executed Will deed dated 26-8-1993 bequeathing the schedule properties in his favour. However, the Mandal Revenue Officer ignoring the claim of the petitioner mutated the property in the revenue records in his mother s name. 4-5. The petitioner s mother during her lifetime executed a registered Will deed No. 59/95 dated 21-7-1995 in favour of the petitioner bequeathing the schedule property in his favour and after the death of the petitioner s mother, he succeeded to the schedule property under the Will. The petitioner asserts that he is in possession of the landed property by the date of death of his mother. It is his case that even during the lifetime of his mother, he has been paying the land revenue but in her name and after her death, the petitioner submitted an application for getting his name recorded in the revenue records.

( 6 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the respondent-defendant has no manner of right over the petition schedule property and she has been claiming it without any authority of law under some influential sources. It is under those circumstances, the petitioner filed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the respondent-defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The petitioner also filed an interlocutory application for grant of temporary injunction.

( 7 ) THE Agent to Government without considering the application of the petitioner on merits disposed of the same observing that the petitioner herein made an attempt to get his title declared on the strength of the Will deed referred to hereinabove. The Agent to Government held that any order from him would amount to effectively adjudicating an issue relating to probate of Will. Such a course is not permissible in law.

( 8 ) THE Agent to Government further held that the proper course for the petitioner would be to approach the competent Court of jurisdiction for probate of Will. It is observed by the Agent to Government that suit for injunction cannot be converted into a proceeding for making an enquiry for probate of Will. The Agent of Government relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in T. V. Narayana v. Venkata Subbamma, AIR 1996 SC 1807. The appeal to the Supreme Court itself has been preferred against the judgment of this Court in C. R. P. No. 1935 of 1992, dated 5-11-1993. The only question that had fallen for consideration before the Supreme Court was (Para 4) :"whether the respondent is entitled to adduce secondary evidence to prove the alleged Will said to have been executed by Venkata Subbamma in her favour ?"

( 9 ) THE Supreme Court observed (Para 4) :"the mere suit for injunction cannot be converted into a suit for probation of a Will whereat the Will is to be proved. If the Will is to be proved according to law, it has to be by way of probate in the Court having competency and jurisdiction according to the procedure provided under the Indian Succession Act. The procedure cannot be converted into a suit for mere injunction as a probate suit and direct the parties to adduce evidence, be it primary or secondary evidence

Click Here to Read the rest of this document