By the Court.—This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant Santosh Kumar alias Tata against the order dated 12-10-2007, passed by Sri Bachchu Singh, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ballia in O.S. No. 276 of 2004, by which ad-interim injunction 6C-2 moved by the plaintiff-appellant has been rejected but the application 60C-2, moved by the defendant-respondent Smt. Meena Devi for the same purpose has been allowed and the plaintiff-appellant has been restrained till the pendency of the suit from interfering in any way with the title and possession of defendant-respondent in the property in dispute.

2. We have heard Sri Phaujdar Rai and Sri V. Singh, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned Counsel for the respondent.

3. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for injunction on the basis of a Will dated 6-3-2003, alleged to have been executed by Shambhoo Prasad, husband of defendant-respondent regarding his two immovable properties detailed in the Will, the copy of which is Annexure-3. These properties are the houses, one situate in District Ballia of Uttar Pradesh and another in District Thane (Maharashtra). It has been alleged in the plaint that late Sambhoo Prasad gave right of ownership to the plaintiff-appellant by the Will the respondent being widow has been given only right of residence and maintenance. The suit is being contested by the respondent on the ground that the alleged Will is a forged document and her husband never executed any Will in favour of plaintiff-appellant who is real nephew of the deceased Sambhoo Prasad. A registered Will has been executed in the year 1976 by deceased Sambhoo Prasad in favour of defendant-respondent and by virtue of that Will, the respondent is in possession of the properties in suit as owner. The plaintiff-appellant is a member of Nagar Palika, Ballia and misusing his position as such, he got his name mutated in place of deceased Sambhoo Prasad in Nagar Palika records. When the defendant-respondent came to know about this, she moved application before the Collector concerned and her prayer was accepted of mutation application after giving opportunity to the respondent to be heard. Against said order, the plaintiff-appellant filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44119 of 2004 before this Court, which was dismissed and the order, passed by the Collector, Ballia was upheld. Learned trial Court considered each and every aspect of the case and perused the papers on record and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff-appellant has no prima-facie case and rejected his ad-interim injunction application but allowed the application of defendant-respondent and gave the aforesaid direction.

4. The copy of plaint has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the memo of appeal. A plain perusal of this plaint shows that the plaintiff-appellant has nowhere disclosed execution of Will by deceased Sambhoo Prasad in favour of defendant-respondent in the year 1976. Thus, he has concealed the material fact and has not come with clean hands. Before the trial Court, the copy of Will in favour of defendant-respondent had been filed, that Will is a registered Will as is evident from the contents of impugned order. Learned trial Court has observed that when the deceased had already executed a registered Will in favour of his wife, that could be replaced by only another registered Will. He has cited 2000 (91) RD 615, S. Saktivel v. M. Venugopal Pillai and others, in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that terms of a registered document can be altered, varied or rescinded only by subsequent registered document and not otherwise. We have perused the aforesaid judgment. The facts of that case were different. In that case, a settlement had arrived between the parties by a registered deed and later on, terms were changed by unregistered deed and in that case, the Hon’ble Apex Court gave the aforesaid opinion. But as regard Will is concerned, law is very clear. A Will ne