1. This revision has been filed against the judgment and decree passed in C.M.A.No.73 of 2006 dated 24.06.2008 by the lower appellate court in setting aside the order passed by the trial court namely the Additional Sub Judge Coimbatore against the order passed in I.A.No.211 of 2006 in O.S.No.227 of 2006 dated 26.06.2006.

2. For convenience sake the rank of parties before the trial court is maintained in this revision.

3. The petitioner as plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the defendant who is none other than the brother of the petitioner on the foot of a Will executed by the mother dated 15.06.2001 bequeathing the immovable property belonging to her in favour of the petitioner on her own volition and in the sound and disposing state of mind. The said mother Amirtham died on 04.01.2003, and the father Ponnusamy had predeceased her. The Will came into effect and the petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property even from the year 1992 and she continued her possession. Thereafter, on 09.04.2006, the respondent has come along with some other unknown persons, and threatened the petitioner with dire consequences and he would also proclaim that if the petitioner did not hand over the possession, he would forcefully take the possession. Therefore, the petitioner gave a criminal complaint against the defendant and also filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondent.

4. The respondent would deny the execution of the will dated 15.06.2001 of their mother as not a true one. The respondent also denied that the Will was not executed by the testator voluntarily on her own volition in a sound and disposing state of mind. He would further submit that the said Amirtham was along with her daughter Geetha and her grand daughter Rajani who were brutally murdered by unknown persons on 04.03.2003 and the investigation in Cr.No.137 of 2003 before the B6 Peelamedu police station is still pending. Since the mother was murdere,d the petitioner who was residing at Tiruppur and the respondent who was residing at Cheran Nagar, Coimbatore have come to the suit property and they started staying in the suit property and actually both the petitioner and the respondent are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The claim of the petitioner that she is in exclusive possession of the suit property is not correct and she cannot also seek for any injunction against the co-owner in the absence of the Will. The alleged Will is a forged one, created fraudulently, and it is an unregistered document and it is not a true and valid document. Therefore, the possession and enjoyment of the respondent cannot be disturbed by the way of injunction ordered with the aid of the court. The allegations that the petitioner with his henchmen had threatened the petitioner were all invented for the purpose of the case. The petitioner did not approach the court with clean hands. The petitioner has no prima facie case and the balance of convenience is not in favour of the petitioner. Much hardship and inconvenience will be caused to the respondent in the event of grant of interim injunction. Therefore, the petition has to be dismissed.

5. The trial court did not record oral evidence but admitted Exs.P1 to P.12 and Exs.R1 to R9 on either side and had appraised the documentary evidence and had come to the conclusion that the petitioner was in exclusive possession of the suit property and therefore, it had granted temporary injunction till the disposal of the suit.

6. Aggrieved against the said order, an appeal was preferred by the respondent/defendant before the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore in C.M.A.No.73 of 2006 and the said court had come to the conclusion that there is no prima facie case for the petitioner and therefore, it set aside the order of temporary injunction granted by the trial court in favour of the petitioner and consequently the appeal was allowed. Aggrieved by