- (1.)This petition under section 115, Civil Procedure Code, arises out of the suit filed by Karam Chand, respondent, for a permanent injunction restraining Smt. Tulsan Bai and the vendee, from alienating the property in dispute in any mariner on the plea that Smt. Tulsan Bai, step-mother of the plaintiff, got only restricted estate therein under the will of his father dated May 17, 1935. Along with ti.e suit was also filed an application for ad interim injunction to the same effect.
(2.)The trial Court rejected this application with the finding that Smt. Tulsan Bai had become full owner of the property in dispute by operation of the provisions of section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act (hereinafter called the Act). The learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, on appeal, reversed that order and allowed the application vide order dated January 5, 1979 with the observations that the execution and validity of the will as well as the question as to whether the case was covered by the provisions of section 14 (1) or 14 (2) of the Act were yet to be determined by the trial Court. It is this order which has been challenged in this petition by the defendants.
(3.)The learned counsel for the petitioners in the first instance contended that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action because in her life time Smt. Tulsan Bai, even if she may be a limited owner, has absolute right to enjoy the property and to alienate it for legal necessity. But I am unable to agree with this contention because the right of the reversioners to restrain a limited owner from wasting the property is well recognised. Reference in this connection may he made to Manmatha Nath Biswas v. Rohilli Moni Dasi and others,1905 27 ILR(All) 406 and Mussammat Teja and another v. Allah Din and another, 35 IndCas 229.