MT DEOKI Vs. JWALA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff was the next male heir of the deceased Hoti Lal and a will set up by his widow, Mt. Deoki, in her favour alleged to have been dated 28 October 1922 was a false and spurious document. The deceased Hoti Lal had left a daughter Mt. Prembati who would succeed to the estate if her mother were to die, but the plaintiff has not impleaded her. She is in fact an unmarried minor girl of tender years and is under the protection of her mother. The claim was mainly contested by the widow Mt. Deoki, who pleaded that the deceased had, one day before his death, executed an unregistered will in her favour conferring upon her an absolute estate. The property in dispute consists of a one-sixth share in two markets and a one-third share in two residential houses. The defendant further pleaded that the plaintiff was not the next immediate reversioner and was not entitled to maintain the suit for declaration.

(2.) The Court below has decreed the claim by granting the plaintiff a declaration that the alleged will set up by the widow was a forged document. The defendant has accordingly appealed to this Court, and on her behalf both the right of the plaintiff to maintain the suit and the finding of the Court below as regards the spuriousness of the will are challenged.

(3.) As regards the relief that the plaintiff would be the next male heir, it is now well settled that a mere presumptive reversionary heir, who has a mere possibility of succession or spes successionis upon the death of a Hindu widow, is not en titled to maintain a suit for a declaration of his so-called reversionary right. A reversioner as such cannot under Section 42, Specific Belief Act, claim to be entitled to any legal character or any right to any property. Even assuming that the word "right" may include rights present, future, vested or contingent, such a declaration would be refused as it would be premature. As the actual succession will depend upon the state of things existing when the widow dies, it is impossible to predicate at this moment who would be the reversionary heir of the deceased full proprietor. The declaration sought, therefore, is futile and must be refused. Indeed the learned advocate for the appellant has conceded that such a declaration cannot be granted.