As per case facts, Peddanna's descendants were involved in a dispute over ancestral property. Thippamma's partition suit was dismissed. Balappa Reddy had repeatedly failed to prove exclusive ownership based on ... a Will in multiple past suits and appeals. Despite this, his legal heirs, who are appellants in a pending appeal (R.A.No.98/2020), obtained a temporary injunction in MFA No.1336/2025, preventing interference with possession and damaging a tomb. Review petitioners, who purchased a portion of the land from Narayanappa's legal heirs, challenged this injunction, arguing that prior court orders established the Will was not proved and Balappa Reddy was estopped from claiming full ownership due to a relinquishment deed. The question arose whether the temporary injunction granted in MFA No.1336/2025 was based on an error apparent on the face of the record, considering the proven invalidity of the Will and the principle of estoppel. Finally, the Court found an error apparent on the record. It recalled the temporary injunction, affirming the trial court's dismissal of the injunction application. The review petitioners were directed to reserve 1/15th share of the property without alienation for the duration of the appeal, and any construction would be subject to the appeal's outcome, while Gurramma's tomb was to be preserved.