LALTI Vs. HIRA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by the defendants arises out of a suit for an injunction restraining the widow, that is appellant No. 1, from committing any acts of waste. The suit has been decreed by both the Courts below.

(2.) The established facts in the case are that the property in dispute belonged to Kheman on whose death his two sons, Arjun and Ram Charan, succeeded to his property in equal shares. Hira Lal plaintiff is the son of Arjun while Mst, Lalti, appellant No. 1 is the widow of Ram Charan. The other two appellants are said to be sons of Mst. Lalti by a former husband. The plaintiff alleged that he was the nearest reversioner and as the widow, Mst Lalti,, was committing acts of waste he prayed for the relief of injunction. The only act of waste alleged in the plaint was that Smt Lalti had made an application for entering the property in the names of the other two appellants and even though that application, was dismissed, yet the plaintiff! entertained an apprehension of other acts of waste.

(3.) The main defence in the case was that the plaintiff had no right of suit because the widow had committed no act of waste nor had she done any act which was injurious or detrimental to the reversionary interest. Some questions of fact which' were raised in the plaint were also disputed. The suit was said to be, not maintainable.