Point of Law: It is well settled law that Appellate Court may not interfere with exercise of discretion of Court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where Court had ignored settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions.

JUDGMENT :

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 15.2.2022 passed below Exh-5 by the 6th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur, Ahmedabad in Special Civil Suit No. 256 of 2021, the original defendants have preferred this Appeal from Order under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC. The appellants are the original defendants and the respondent is the original plaintiff before the trial Court. For the brevity and convenience, the parties are referred to in this Appeal from Order as per the nomenclature assigned to them in the trial Court.

2. The plaintiff has filed the Suit for setting aside the Will dated 28.5.2018 executed by his father deceased Ishwarbhai Madhavlal Patel bearing Registration No. 5128 and registered with the Office of Sub-Registrar, Ahmedabad, Memnagar and for declaration that defendants each have 25% share in the assets of the deceased Ishwarbhai described in Schedule A and B annexed with the Plaint and for passing decree of partition of all the assets of the deceased Ishwarbhai Madhavlal Patel. The plaintiff has also sought for prayer directing the defendants to disclose the inventory and accounts of all the movable assets left behind by deceased Ishwarbhai Madhavlal Patel and for declaration that the defendants are not entitled to deal with, alienate, transfer, mortgage, part with possession or create any third party right, title or interest in the assets of deceased Ishwarbhai Madhavlal Patel as mentioned in Schedule - A and Schedule - B and also for permanent injunction against the defendants from dealing with the properties in question. Along with the Plaint, the plaintiff has also filed an application for interim injunction at Exh-5 restraining the defendants from dealing with or alienating or transferring in any manner the suit properties and also for directing to the defendants to disclose the inventory and accounts of all movables left behind by deceased Ishwarbhai Madhavlal Patel on his death and also for direction to the defendants to hand over and/ or to pay 25% share of all such assets to him.

2.1 The defendants have filed the written statement at Exh-15 and resisted the Suit regarding all the reliefs sought by him as well as interim injunction application.

2.2 It appears that after hearing both the sides and considering the material placed on record, the trial Court has passed the order of status-quo in respect of all the properties mentioned in the Registered Will till the final disposal of the Suit and also directing the defendants to provide accounts and list of all movable properties, which were in existence at the time of death of deceased Ishwarbhai Manharlal Patel within 30 days. Against this order, defendants have filed the present Appeal from Order.

3. The plaintiff has filed the Suit alleging that the properties were of the joint family property and he has right in the properties of his deceased father. By narrating the list of properties, the plaintiff has contended that all the properties were purchased by his father from the money he has withdrawn from the partnership firm. It is also contended that the land which was granted to his father due to his Air-Force service, after his death would be a joint property and, therefore, he has share in all these properties. It is contended that the alleged Will of his deceased father is concocted and fabricated one whereby he has been deprived his right as heir of the deceased father in all the properties. He has raised many contention regarding the suspicious condition regarding the alleged Will. The main thrust to his contention is that he has right in all the properties of his deceased father and, therefore, he should be given his share and till then the defendants may be restrained from dealing with the properties in any manner. Along with the Suit, he has filed application for interim injunction which came to be allowed by the trial Court.

4. The stand of the defendant is that the properties were of the sole o