Judgement

Appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court (August 23, 1912) modifying a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram.

The respondent, as next reversioner, instituted a suit against the appellant, a Hindu widow, alleging acts of waste and misconduct on her part in relation to her deceased husbands estate. He prayed for a receiver, an injunction,, and generally for further relief.

Both Courts in India agreed that there had been no waste or misconduct, and that no case had been established for a receiver or an injunction. The Subordinate Judge, however, in his decree made two declarations, of which the High Court upheld one, namely, a declaration that at the date of the decree the respondent was the next reversionary heir to the deceased.

1916. June 22. Kenworthy Brown, for the appellant. The respondent having failed to establish the alleged waste, the suit should have been dismissed. He had no vested interest in the property, but merely a right to succeed if he survived the appellant; he was therefore not entitled to a declaration under s. 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 Kathama Natchiar v. Dorasinga Tever. (( 1875) L. R. 2 Ind. Ap. 169.) That case was decided under s. 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure (VIII. of 1859), which is substantially the same as s. 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The respondent sued as representing the reversioners generally Venkatanarayana Pillai v. Subbammal. (( 1915) L. R. 42 Ind. Ap. 125.) A declaration of the respondents individual right is contrary to the principle of that decision. According to the principles of English law a declaration cannot be made of a merely contingent interest Davis v. Angel (( 1862) 4 D. F. & J. 529.); Hammerton v. Dysart. ([ 1916] 1 A. C. 57; [ 1914] 1 Ch. 822, 834.)

E. B. Raikes, for the respondent. During the widows life the next reversioner has the right to sue for the protection of the estate. That right is "a legal right as to property" within the meaning of s. 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. Kathama Natchiars Case (( 1875) L. R. 2 Ind. Ap. 169.) has never been applied to a case under that section, which materially differs from s. 15 of the Code of 1859. An issue was framed as to whether the respondent was the next reversioner and was determined by both Courts in his favour. He was entitled to a declaration of his right to represent the reversioners. The Board in Thakurain Jaipal Kunwar v. Bhaiya Indar Bahadur Singh (( 1904) L. R. 31 Ind. Ap. 67.) declared itself reluctant to interfere with a lower Courts discretion to grant a declaratory decree.

July 10. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

LORD SHAW OF DUNFERMLINE. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras of August 23, 1912, modifying the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram, dated October 28, 1907.

The suit was brought with reference to the estate of one Ramasami Iyer, of Konerirajapuram, who died intestate on June 24, 1906. It is not disputed that the widow holds the property under the Hindu law as " a widows estate." The mother of the late owner is the person entitled to succeed should she survive this widow. On the expiry of these lives the estate will descend to the next reversionary heir of the deceased. „

The rule of the Hindu law with regard to the nature of the widows estate may have been subject to various forms of expression, but in substance it is not doubtful. Her right is of the nature of a right of property; her position is that of owner; her powers in that character are, however, limited ; but, to use the familiar language of Maynes Hindu Law, paragraph 625, p. 870, " so long as she is alive no one has any vested interest in the succession.* These propositions were not disputed.

The law as to the situation of the reversionary heirs is also in substance quite clear ; there is, as stated, no vesting as at the date of the husbands death, and it follows that the questions of who is the nearest reversionary heir or wha