1. The plaintiff is the appellant in the Second Appeal. He had filed the suit for an injunction to restrain the defendant-respondent herein from committing waste in the suit properties by cutting and removing valuable trees including yielding rubber trees and/or carry on slaughter tapping and for other appropriate reliefs. The plaintiff is the son of the defendant and one Joseph. The defendant, the widow of Joseph has only a life interest in the suit properties, her rights being governed by S.24 of the Travancore Christian Succession Act. The plaintiff being the only son of Joseph is entitled to the properties as his heir after the death of the defendant. The defendant is not entitled to commit waste in the property or cut and remove the rubber trees which are yielding. The allegation is that the defendant is recklessly cutting and removing yielding rubber trees and other valuable trees and slaughter tapping rubber trees and that she, according to the plaintiff, is liable to be restrained from doing so.

2. The suit was resisted by the defendant contending interalia that though she has only a 'Jeevanamsac Avakasam' she has the right to carry on slaughter tapping and replant the property. She contended that she has neither committed any waste nor has any intention to commit waste. In the circumstances, the plaintiff is not entitled to restrain her from enjoying the property as she likes. Both the courts below have held against the plaintiff on the basis of the decision in 1960 KLT. 463. The courts below took the view that a Christian widow is the absolute owner of her share of the property till her death or re-marriage. As the defendant is a Christian widow, who has got the property concerned as per the decree for partition of her husband's estate in O. S. No. 196 of 1956, she is absolutely entitled to her share as such and she can enjoy the property in any manner she likes and nobody would be competent to impose any restriction on her. Her rights would only be terminated by her death or re-marriage. On this basis, the plaintiff was denied the relief sought for. I have no hesitation in holding that both the courts below have thoroughly misunderstood the law on the matter.

3. A Christian widow's right to the immovable properties of her husband's estate is governed by S.24 of the Travancore Christian Succession Act. S.24 of the Act reads:

'Over any immovable property to which a widow or mother becomes entitled to under S.16,17,21 and 22 she will have only a life-interest terminable at death or re-marriage.

On the determination of the limited estate of the widow or the mother the property over which she had such limited interest shall be distributed among the heirs of the original intestate, as if the holder of the life-estate had not survived the intestate.'

The nature of the widow's estate under the Travancore Christian Succession Act is entirely different from a widow's estate under the Hindu Law. The nature of widow's estate has come up for consideration in some cases. In Nicholas Decosta v. Sivasubramonia Nadar (1956 KLT. 177) Justice Vithayathil has pointed out that S 24 provides that over any immovable property to which a widow becomes entitled, she will have only a life-interest terminable at death or re-marriage, and that on the determination of the limited interest of the widow, the property over which she had such limited interest shall be distributed among the heirs of the original intestate as if the holder of the life estate had not survived the intestate. But then the position of a person who under the said Act succeeds to ah estate in respect of which a life-interest is created in favour of the widow of the intestate is entirely different from that of a reversioner under the Hindu Law in respect of a property subject to widow's estate, that under the Christian Succession Act the heir of the original owner gets a vested interest in the property on the death of the owner subject to the life-interest of the wido