A. No. 1600/1995 and O.A. Nos. 282/1995 and 283/1995. The averments in the affidavit in all the three applications are similar and it is as follows: The deponent is a third party. He was born in Kerala in 1958. One Koshy and his wife were neighbours of the applicant. They have brought him to Madras and was bringing him up as their foster son. Koshy died on 4-2-1979. He had purchased the schedule mentioned property on 16-6-1953. His wife had executed a sale deed in respect of the first floor of the said property and it is the subject matter of this petition. The petitioner had a joint account with Mariam Koshy in Canara Bank, Kelly. The petitioner was residing in the same house. In the Voters list as well as in the Ration Card, his name is in the said premises. He is non employed in M.R.F. as a driver. After the death of Mr. Koshy, one Alexander and his wife who are related to Koshy, came to Madras and they were permitted to be in the premises by Mr. Dr. Mariam Koshy. Mariam Koshy had executed a Will in favour of Alexander on 16-8-1988. But, subsequently, she had cancelled the same and executed a cancellation deed also. She had informed the petitioner that she does not want Alexander to get any benefit under the Will and she does not want to execute any other document. It appears that the respondents have suppressed the execution of the cancellation document dated 24-8-1991 and obtained the probate in O.P. No.516/1994 on 2-12-1994. The present application viz., A. 1600/1995 is to revoke the said probate. O.A. No. 282/1995 is for injunction restraining the respondents from alienating and demolishing the petition-mentioned property in pursuance of the probate. O.A. No.283/1995 is for injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the property by the petitioner.

2. When these applications were moved, interim injunction was granted in O.A. Nos. 282/ 1995 and 283/1995 and notice returnable by 12-4-1995 was ordered.

3. In A. No. 1600/1995, also notice has been ordered.

4. Aggrieved over the said order of interim injunction, the respondents have filed A. Nos. 2363 and 2364/1995 to vacate the injunction granted in O.A. No. 282/1995 and 283/1995.

5. The counter in O.A. No.1600/1995 and the averments in A. Nos. 2363 and 2364/1995 are same and it is as follows: The deponent is the second respondent. It is false to state that V. K. Koshy and his wife were neighbours of the petitioner in Kerala. It is also false to state that they brought him to Madras in the year 1971 and treated him as their foster son. They were in Delhi for more than 20 years before they came and settled at Madras. The mother of the petitioner was a maid servant in Dr. (Mrs.) Mariam Koshys father-in-laws house at Kerala. The petitioner was brought to Madras only as a paid servant to work in the house of Mr. Koshy. There is no other relationship between them. After the death of Koshy in the year 1979, the petitioner has joined the service of M.R.F. Company as driver. He used to visit Dr. (Mrs.) Mariam Koshy during her life-time since he had a soft corner for one Krishna Leka who was working as a maid servant in the house of Mrs. Mariam Koshy. He used to benefit himself by seeking the help of Dr. (Mrs.) Mariam Koshy. The allegation that he was having a joint account with Mrs. Mariam Koshy is not correct. The residence of the petitioner in the house belonging to Mariam Koshy does not give him any right over the said property. The registered will executed by Dr. (Mrs.) Mariam Koshy was attested by Mr. Eapen Varghese a practising advocate. The allegation that Mrs. Mariam Koshy had cancelled the Will by a document of the year 1991 is not true. Mr. Alexander and his family members have been residing in the ground floor premises of the petition-mentioned property for more than nine years. Mr. Alexander is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the said property. The petitioner had never been in possession of the said property. Alexander