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