Temporary Injunction Where a Sibling Alleges the Mother's Will Is Forged

Imagine this situation: a person approaches a civil court seeking a temporary injunction over property that his mother allegedly bequeathed to him through a will. His brother contests the application, asserting that the will is forged and fabricated. What should the court do at this preliminary stage? This question sits at the intersection of testamentary succession and interim relief under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and Indian courts have developed a fairly consistent approach to it.

The Three-Part Test at the Interim Stage

A temporary injunction is a provisional, protective measure — not a mini-trial. The applicant must ordinarily satisfy the court on three counts:

• Prima facie case – a colourable, arguable right based on the material placed before the court;
• Balance of convenience – the inconvenience caused to the applicant if relief is refused must outweigh the hardship to the respondent if relief is granted;
• Irreparable injury – harm that cannot be compensated in money if the property is alienated or altered in the meantime.

Courts have repeatedly cautioned that a trial court should not grant relief at this stage that properly belongs to final adjudication. As was argued in one appellate challenge, the trial Court while deciding the temporary injunction application, granted relief which was to be given at the time of final adjudication 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 1505. The forgery question — whether the will is genuine — is precisely such a question, generally reserved for the final trial unless the material is so one-sided that no prima facie case survives.

How the Forgery Allegation Affects the Analysis

A mere allegation that the will is forged does not automatically defeat an injunction application. In a dispute involving a mother's will, the trial court admitted the documentary evidence from both sides, found the petitioner in exclusive possession, and granted a temporary injunction till the disposal of the suit 2010 0 Supreme(Mad) 4488. The appellate court later reversed that finding because it concluded that the alleged Will is a forged one, created fraudulently, and it is an unregistered document and that both siblings were actually residing in the suit property 2010 0 Supreme(Mad) 4488.

By contrast, where parallel proceedings cast real doubt on a will, courts may refuse interim protection. In one case, an appellant claiming under his son's will faced a registered sale deed in favour of the respondents, plus an FIR and a rejected mutation application indicating the will was forged; the refusal of injunction was upheld because the trial court's discretion was reasoned and not perverse 2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 3985. The key takeaway: the strength of the forgery allegation is assessed on the material available — revenue records, criminal complaints, registration status — but only for the limited purpose of testing the prima facie case, without pre-judging the suit.

Possession Is Often the Decisive Factor

• Exclusive possession of the suit property materially strengthens the claimant's application. Continuous possession since the mother's death was found significant in the will-based injunction dispute 2010 0 Supreme(Mad) 4488.
• Shared or contested possession tilts the balance the other way. Where both siblings moved into the property after the mother's death, the court found no basis to disturb the respondent's position by injunction 2010 0 Supreme(Mad) 4488.
• Nature of the title document matters. A registered gift deed was held to furnish stronger prima facie evidence of title and possession than an unregistered will relied upon by the contesting defendants 2024 0 Supreme(AP) 412.
• Interference must also be shown. It is not enough to be prima facie in possession; the applicant should ideally demonstrate that the other side is attempting to dispossess or interfere with that possession 2024 0 Supreme(AP) 412.

The Limits of Interim Adjudication

Two additional principles shape the court's order. First, appellate courts are slow to disturb a trial court's discretionary injunction ruling unless it is arbitrary, perverse, or illegal 2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 3985. Second, where proceedings are framed as probate or succession proceedings, the forum's power is narrower — a probate court can determine the genuineness and due execution of the will but cannot grant interlocutory relief concerning the estate property before probate is granted 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 1787. This is why claimants typically sue for declaration and injunction in a civil suit, where Order 39 relief is available.

A related nuance appears where neither side has an airtight document: courts sometimes decline outright injunction but direct parties to maintain status quo, especially where the claimant's foundational document (such as a registered gift deed) has not been specifically denied in the show-cause response 2012 0 Supreme(Pat) 1597. Similarly, a co-owner may obtain interim protection against construction or alienation even without exclusive possession, where fraud and irreparable injury are shown 2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 34729.

What the Court Should Order in This Scenario

Applying these principles to the question — a claimant relying on his mother's will against a brother alleging forgery — the court would typically:

1. Test the prima facie case on the will itself, evidence of attestation, registration (if any), mutation records, and the claimant's possession — without finally deciding genuineness 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 1505.
2. Assess possession — exclusive possession favours the claimant; shared possession favours refusal or a status quo order 2010 0 Supreme(Mad) 4488.
3. Weigh the balance of convenience — whether dispossession or alienation before trial would cause irreparable harm.
4. Consider parallel proceedings — FIRs, mutation rejections, or revenue records casting doubt on the will may justify refusal 2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 3985.
5. Reserve the forgery finding for trial and, if a colourable case and possession exist, grant a temporary injunction restraining the brother from disturbing possession or alienating the property until the suit is decided 2010 0 Supreme(Mad) 4488.

Key Takeaways

• The court decides only whether interim protection is warranted — not whether the will is genuine.
• Exclusive possession supported by the will is the claimant's strongest asset; shared possession usually leads to refusal or status quo.
• Unregistered wills carry less interim weight than registered instruments.
• Heavy suspicion from parallel criminal or revenue proceedings can defeat the prima facie case even before trial.
• Appeals against interim orders succeed only where discretion was exercised perversely or arbitrarily.

Because each dispute turns on its own documents and possession facts, anyone facing a similar conflict should treat this as general information and seek advice tailored to their specific case.