The principle that an injunction can be granted for preventing waste by a manager for karta obviously would not be applicable to such a suit because the proposed alienation of an alleged need or the benefit of the estate cannot be said to be an act of waste by any stretch of reasoning--A coparcener has no right to maintain a suit for permanent injunction restraining the manager or the karta from alienating the coparcenary property and his right is only to challenge the same and to recover the property after it has come into being.

A.N.Jindal, J.

1. This petition has arisen out of the order dated 26.7.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nuh, accepting the appeal filed by the defendant-respondent (herein referred as the defendant) against the order dated 26.10.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Ferozepur, Jhirka, and dismissing the application of the plaintiff-petitioner (herein referred as the plaintiff) for grant of injunction.

2. The brief resume of facts is that the defendant is the widow of late Samsuddin son of Ishak and the plaintiff-Sher Khan (now deceased represented by the petitioners) was the real brother of late Samsuddin. They are Meos by caste and agriculturists by profession. They are dominant agricultural tribe of erstwhile State of Punjab and Haryana and are governed by the customary law. The pedigree table, for convenience is as under :-

See Table Ishak c ,---------------1 | ---------1 Sher Khan Samsuddin Ayyub Abbas I Hajra (widow) I I Ismail Rashid

3 Late Samsuddin was the co-sharer to the extent of 1 /4th share in the suit land situated in the revenue estate of village Neemka, Tehsil Punhana, District Gurgaon. On his death, mutation was sanctioned in favour of the defendant vide mutation No. 1772 dated 17.2.1999. The defendant had no male issue, therefore, Sher Khan and his two brothers namely Ayyub and Abbas being the nearest collaterals had to succeed the estate left by Samsuddin on the death of the defendant. According to the custom prevailing in the community, the ancestral property in the hands of meos is inherited by his son and in the absence of his son by the nearest collateral. Daughters have no right of succession in the property either ancestral or non-ancestral in the hands of meo proprietor. However, the widow could inherit the same as limited owner and she could not alienate the same without legal necessity. She also could not appoint any heir without consent of the nearest collaterals of her husband who were legally entitled to inherit the property on her death. Since the defendant wanted to alienate the property, Sher Khan filed the suit. However, during the pendency of the suit he expired and succeeded by the petitioners. In this suit for injunction the plaintiff has also sought temporary injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit property during the pendency of the suit, which was accepted by the trial court. However, this order was reversed in appeal.

4. The main controversy involved in the present petition is as to whether a limited owner under the customary law had the right to alienate the same and whether the plaintiffs could file the suit for injunction during the life time of the widow ?

5. There is no denying a fact that parties are meos by caste and agriculturist tribe and the property was inherited by defendant from her husband. As per customary law authored by Sir W.H. Rattigan who compiled all the customs prevailing in the agricultural states of Punjab & Haryana, recorded in paraNo. 62 in "A Digest of Customary Law In The Punjab", as under:

"62. Every person having an interest in property whether absolute or as life tenant (e.g. a widow, a daughter, or a mother) can sell or mortgage such property for a necessary purpose."

6. The rights of the women in agricultural tribes of meos was put at par with the rights of karta in a joint Hindu family property and she could alienate the property for her legal necessity.

7. 1 have been informed that the defendant has daughters of marriageable age. She has also submitted that the property in the hands of Samsuddin was not ancestral. She also denied if she was governed by the custom and on her death the property was to devolve upon Sher Khan since deceased.

8. Having examined records and hearingthe rival contentions, it could prima facie be observed that the property was ancestral in the hands of Samsuddin and he was a co-sharer to the extent of 1 /4th share in the land. However, this issue requires consideratio