JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Mishra appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1. 2. The petitioner instituted original suit no. 457 of 2011 for cancellation of will dated 20.3.1972 registered on 14.11.1977 (dates wrongly mentioned in the copy of the plaint annexed with the petition, as 24.3.1972 and 6.11.1977) and for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the properties, which are subject matter of the will. The will in question was allegedly executed by Keshav Deo father of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the will in question is a forged document. The petitioner also made an application for temporary injunction which was opposed by the defendant-respondents. The trial court by detailed order dated 1.8.2013 rejected the application for temporary injunction after recording a specific finding that the petitioner could not prove the prima-facie case in her favour. Neither balance of convenience lies with her, nor she is likely to suffer irreparable loss and injury in case the injunction application is rejected. The order, has been affirmed with the dismissal of the appeal by order and judgment dated 7.5.2015. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, made a statement before the court that although the suit was with regard to all the properties covered by the will, but the petitioner was claiming injunction only with regard to plot no. 211 over which a temple exists. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the courts below have erred in rejecting the injunction application filed by the petitioner by placing reliance on the will in question whereunder the right of management has been given to respondent no. 1. 4. The aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court was specifically dealt with by the lower appellate court while deciding the appeal. The lower appellate court has noted in the impugned judgment that by the will in question the entire properties owned by Keshav Deo were bequeathed in favour of his four daughters in equal shares except plot no. 211 over which, admittedly a temple is in existence. It has been noted that under the will, the right of managing the temple has been given to Sharda Devi, defendant no. 1. 211 over which, admittedly a temple is in existence. It has been noted that under the will, the right of managing the temple has been given to Sharda Devi, defendant no. 1. She is receiving rent of the temple property and also managing the affairs of the temple. The appellate court has held that the validity of the will is yet to be decided and in such circumstances, the appellate court declined to grant any injunction in favour of the petitioner, in respect of the management of the temple or with regard to plot no. 211 over which the temple is in existence. 5. The petitioner could not show any evidence to prove that she was in control of the management of the temple. The will, though confers right of management on defendant no. 1, but it places a specific prohibition against alienations. In case will is ignored, all the four sister, including the petitioner will get right of management and not the petitioner alone. It will result in total chaos. Thus, balance of convenience is not in favour of the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, this Court does not find any illegality in the view taken by the courts below. The findings recorded are findings of fact and do not call for any interference in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution. 7. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.