Reasonable apprehension of potential waste justifies Court's interference to safeguard reversioners' interests, even in the absence of specific acts of waste or mismanagement.

Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. This appeal and the memorandum of objections arise out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs as reversioners of the estate of one Kumaraswami Chetti for restraining the first defendant, the mother of the said Kumaraswami Chetti from committing waste of the property inherited by her from her son. The first plaintiff was related to the said Kumaraswami as his great grandfathers brothers son. Plain-tiffs 2 and 3 are the sons of the deceased brothers of the first plaintiff. The first plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit in the lower Court and plaintiffs 2 and 3 were declared as his legal representatives. The second defendant Subbammal is the grandmother of the deceased Kumaraswami Chetti being his fathers fathers wife. The third defendant is the wife of Kumaraswamis great grandfather. Defendants 2 and 3 are admittedly persons entitled to maintenance out of the estate of Kumaraswami. In the plaint the plaintiff alleged that the first defendant was entirely in the hands of her lather, one Muthukrishna Chettiar, that the bulk of the property was moveable property, being fixed deposits in Banks and that the conduct of the widow was such as to raise a reasonable apprehension that the corpus of the estate would be endangered if the first defendant was allowed to have a free hand with ,the management of the property inherited by her. The first defendant denied that she was guilty of any act of waste and that no case was made out for restraining her right to the possession of the property inherited. The learned District Judge found that on the date? of the death of Kumaraswami Chetti the estate consisted of two houses and a vacant site lying at Vellore and a sum of Rs. 18,500 in the shape of fixed deposits in the Co-operative Urban Bank, Vellore, in the Karur Vysia Bank, Karur, and in the Kannikaparameswari Bank at Dindigul, that of the two houses, the first defendant was living in one house and the other was required for the residential purpose of the second defendant, that no income was derived from the Immovable properties, that only a sum of Rs. 670 per year was the income from the cash deposits and the balance that remained after the payment of house tax was the net income of the widow, and that she was also bound to pay maintenance to defendants 2 and 3 at the rate of Rs. 7 and Rs. 10 per month respectively. But by the date of the decree in the lower Court the third defendant seems to have died. In regard to the allegation regarding waste the learned District Judge found that the plaintiffs were unable to adduce any specific acts of waste committed by the first defendant. He was however of the opinion that there were sufficient grounds for the plaintiffs to entertain a reasonable apprehension that the cash which forms the bulk of the estate would disappear unless some safeguard was provided. He therefore passed the following decree:

In the result, there will be a decree in favour of the plaintiffs directing that the first defendant may be at liberty to renew the deposits now lying in the Vellore and Karur Banks and that if at any time she desired to withdraw the deposits or re-invest them in other securities, public or private, she shall be entitled to do so but only on her application to the Court and after notice to the plaintiff of her intention to do so. The object of this notice would be to enable the reversioners to take such steps as they may be advised to take, with a view to prevent the first defendant from dealing with the money in the manner proposed by her. In other words, such questions as may be raised in that behalf shall not be liable to be investigated or determined in the course of the execution of this decree but only in a separate suit. In view of the fact that the plaintiffs have made exaggerated allegations and their success is partial, I would direct that each party shall bear his or her own costs of the suit.

2. The plaintiffs have filed the appeal objecting to the decree o