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 repla