1. It is contended for the appelant that no case has been made out for an injunction inasmuch as no waste has been proved.
2. It is true that the evidence does not establish that any property has been actually made away with, but the question really is whether the conduct of the widow--the qualified owner--has been such as to lead to a well grounded ear that the interests of the reversioners are being substantially imperilled. Hurryioss Dutt v. Sreemutty Dossee 6 M.I.A. 433.
3. We agree with the Subordinate Judge that the evidence in this case justifies such a fear. A reference to Exhibits A and B shows that the widow exchanged a security (Exhibit B) standing in her own name for one (Exhibit A) standing in her brother's name, and the latter makes no reference to the widow's title but on the, contrary by its language leads to the inference that the property belongs solely to her brother, thus rendering it difficult for the reversioner to prove hereafter that the property formed part of the estate.. The sum due under this Exhibit A was admittedly collected by the widow's brother in 1887, and he states that he obtained a receipt for it from the widow, but no such receipt baa.been produced.
4. It is said that the money was re-invested by the widow, but the documents said to relate to it are all documents executed either shortly before or actually after the institution of the suit in 1893. No accounts' are produced to show that these securities really relate to the sum collected in 1887, and the widow has given no evidence on the point.
5. The circumstances connected with 'this transaction thus suggest strongly that an attempt was being made to facilitate the brother's misappropriation of a part of the property, belonging to the estate and support the plaintiff's contention. that a similar attempt was being made in regard to the sum of Rs, 5,500 men-tiohed in the plaint. This sum, like the former sum, was transferred from a security standing in the widow's name to her brother, by means of a hundi and it is not alleged that in this hundi' any reference is made to the fact that the money really belonged to the estate.
6. We think, therefore, that the Subordinate Judge was justified in granting an injunction against the widow. The form of it is, however, partly indefinite, In lieu of it, we direct that the widow be restrained from obtaining securities for the sum mentioned in the plaint otherwise then in her own name. With this slight modification we dismiss, the Appeal with costs.