Mithan Lal, J.
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.
4. Both the Courts below have found that the only act done by the widow was that she made an application for getting the names of appellants 2 and 3 entered in the papers in place of her name. The lower appellate Court also thought that even though that application was dismissed before the filing of the suit, yet the act done by the widow though not an act of waste could very well fall in the category of injurious acts. It was on this basis that the suit was decreed and it is this finding which has been challenged in this second appeal.
5. It has been contended by Sri J. Section Trivedi, learned advocate for the appellants, that the widow committed no acts of waste and the only attempt which the widow made proved abortive before the filing of the suit and so there was no cause of action for the institution of the suit. It is also his submission that the property in dispute is tenancy land over which the widow had an absolute right and, the principle of 'acts of waste' which is applied to the case of limited owners is not applicable to this case.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The judgments given by the Courts below cannot at all be upheld on the own reasoning given by them. The lower appellate court found that the only act which the widow did was an. attempt to get the names of the other two appellants entered by giving an application for correction of papers. It also found that this application had been dismissed. It further found that the mere filing of this application did not amount to any act of waste; but without giving any reason the learned Civil and Sessions Judge thought that this act fell in the category of injurious acts. Even if it be supposed that the widow in this case is in possession of the property as a limited owner, the plaint does not disclose a cause of action by alleging any acts of waste and in fact the learned counsel for the respondent had to admit that the widow could, not be charged for committing any acts of waste. His contention was that the attempt on the part of the widow to get the names of appellants 2 and 3 entered in the papers amounted to an act which was injurious to the reversionary interest and so the suit was maintainable. This contention cannot be accepted because injury to property or injurious! act is not the same thing as an unsuccessful attempt to transfer the property in favour of the sons by a former husband. If the suit had been filed immediately after appellant No. 1 had filed the application but before the rejection of the application, there was some ground for the argument that the moving of the application foe transferring the property in favour of the other two appellants was such a threat as to amount to an injurious act; but when the suit was filed after the application was dismissed, even this alleged threat or alleged injurious act did not exist to give the plaintiff cause of action for filing the suit. A suit for injunction to restrain any limited owner from wasting the property to the detriment of reversionary interest cannot be filed on imaginary grounds OP on imaginary injurious acts. Acts of waste or injurious acts must be positive acts so as to cause real danger to the reversionary interest. Mere unfounded charges of waste do not entitle the next reversioner to obtain an injunction to restrain waste It is hardly necessary to refer to any authority on the above proposition. However, in support thereof the observations of the Privy Council in the case of Janaki Ammal v. Narayanasami Aiyer, 14 All LJ 997: (AIR 1916 PC 117) may be cited. It was held in that case that where a reversionary heir sued for an injunction and it was found that the charges of waste were unfounded, the suit by the next revesioner was held to be not maintainable. In the present case there was no act of waste alleged or proved. The only act which was called an injurious act to the reversion was said to be the filing of an application but that act ceased to be an injurious act when the application was rejected before the filing of the suit. On the date the suit was filed there was nothing to cause any apprehension in the mind of the plaintiff and as there was no cause of action for the suit The relief of injunction which the Courts below have granted to the plaintiff could not therefore be granted. It is not necessary to go into the other argument put forward by the learned counsel for the appellants relating to the rights of the widow in tenancy land. His contention was that the widow does not get a limited interest but an absolute interest and has a right of transfer ,or surrender and so the question of any waste does net arise in such a case. Since suit fails on the own finding of the Civil Judge and the widow committed no act of waste it has become unnecessary to discuss this point
7. This appeal therefore must succeed. The-appeal is allowed with costs, the orders passed bythe Courts below are set aside and the plaintiff'ssuit is dismissed with costs throughout.