Order

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) read with Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the order dated 02.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.4, Udaipur in Civil Misc. Case No.52/2025 (CIS No.166/2025), whereby the application filed by the plaintiff–respondent No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. has been allowed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the plaintiff–respondent No.1, who is daughter of Late Bherulal, instituted a suit for cancellation of a Will dated 27.09.2017 and for permanent injunction, along with an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. It was alleged that disputed agricultural land is ancestral property and that appellants (her brothers) had fraudulently procured execution of the Will dated 27.09.2017 in their favour by misrepresentation. The appellants, however, denied these allegations and contended that land was the self-acquired property of late Bherulal, who validly executed a registered Will in their favour. It was further submitted that mutation was lawfully effected in their names on 02.07.2025 after his death. The claim of the plaintiff regarding possession and cultivation was also specifically denied. Despite this, the learned trial Court, without proper appreciation of evidence, granted a temporary injunction directing status quo and restraining transfer of the property.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that an injunction cannot be granted in favour of a party who is not in possession. The plaintiff failed to establish possession or cultivation of the land, particularly when she resides elsewhere. The learned trial Court erred in holding that a prima facie case existed in favour of the plaintiff, ignoring documentary evidence such as registered sale deed and Will, which clearly establish that property was self-acquired and that Late Bherulal had full authority to execute the Will.

5. It is further contended that the learned trial court ignored material evidence, including affidavit of attesting witness, and recorded perverse findings regarding mutation entries. The trial court failed to properly consider the aspects of possession, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, all of which favour the appellants, who are recorded khatedars and in possession of the land.

6. Learned counsel further contends that the parties are siblings, and the plaintiff has challenged the Will as forged. However, the appellants have been enjoying the property since execution of the Will in 2017. It is further contended that due to expansion of the family and inclusion of the land within municipal limits, the appellants require the land for residential purposes.

7. The appellants expressed their willingness to furnish an undertaking before the learned trial Court that they shall not claim any equity or compensation in case the suit is ultimately decreed against them.

8. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Boya Kistamma Vs. Boya Suri reported in 2025 4 CurCC 315

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff–respondent while supporting the impugned order, submits that the validity of the Will is under challenge and can only be determined after evidence is led. Therefore, the learned trial Court rightly granted an order of status quo, which does not warrant interference.

10. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of the learned trial court and examined the cited judgment.

11. It is an admitted position that the Will dated 27.09.2017 was executed by Late Bherulal in favour of the appellants and that, on its basis, mutation was entered in their names in the year 2025. The plaintiff has challenged the Will, and its validity is subject to adjudicat