Appellate Court cannot reverse discretionary injunction orders by substituting views or relying on unproven expert reports.

The petitioners (defendants) are successors of late Smt. Agya Kaur, the registered owner of the suit properties. Following a 2010 family settlement, Kaur executed a registered Will in 2010 bequeathing her properties to her son Indrajeet and his wife

Upon her death in 2013, the lands were mutated in their names. In 2024, Respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) filed a partition suit and challenged the Will

The Trial Court rejected the plaintiff’s application for a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, finding no prima-facie case

On appeal, the First Appellate Court reversed this decision and granted the injunction, primarily relying on a handwriting expert’s report that was produced at the appellate stage without a formal application for additional evidence

The petitioners challenged this reversal under Article 227 of the Constitution

1. Whether the First Appellate Court erred in reversing the discretionary order of the Trial Court by misapplying the burden of proof regarding the source of acquisition of the property

2. Whether the Appellate Court’s reliance on a handwriting expert’s report, produced without following the procedure under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, rendered its findings perverse

3. Whether the registered Will carries a presumption of genuineness that offsets the plaintiff’s claim for interim relief

Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, which grants a female Hindu absolute ownership of property

Sections 63 and 68 of the Evidence Act for proving documents/Wills and Section 45 for expert opinions

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC for injunction criteria, Order 43 Rule 1(r) for appellate powers, and Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act regarding lis pendens

The doctrine from Metpalli Lasum Bai v. Metapalli Muthaih, establishing a presumption of genuineness for registered Wills

The principle from Mohd Mehtab Khan v. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan, which limits appellate interference in discretionary Trial Court orders to cases of perversity

The High Court found that the First Appellate Court wrongly shifted the burden to the defendants to prove the mother’s independent income, ignoring the legal presumption that the registered owner is the real owner

The Court noted that the Appellate Court failed to follow mandatory procedure under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC when it admitted a new handwriting expert report as "additional evidence" without allowing the petitioners to rebut it

The High Court observed that because the Will was a registered document, a prima-facie presumption of validity exists which the Trial Court correctly recognized

The Court reasoned that the Appellate Court substituted its own view for a "possible view" taken by the Trial Court without demonstrating that the original order was capricious or arbitrary

The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the First Appellate Court’s order dated 23/09/2025, thereby restoring the Trial Court’s order dated 10/03/2025 which denied the injunction

The parties were directed to seek an expedited trial before the lower court