JUDGMENT

1. The substantial question of law raised in this appeal is whether the suit is barret by reason of the proviso to Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, which lays down that no Court shall make any declaration in a declaratory suit where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so. The plaintiffs' commenced this suit for declaration that the first defendant had not been properly appointed mutwalli of the properties in suit. Their case was that in 1888 a deed of wakfnamah had been executed by the owners of the property and that pursuant thereto in 1906 a deed was executed by which the first defendant was appointed mutwalli. The plaintiff set out facts which, if true, go to show that the defendant has taken possession of the property and has dealt with it on the footing that he has been properly appointed its mutwalli. The plaintiffs put their case in the alternative. In the first place, they ask for a declaration that the wakfnamah of 1888 is collusive and inoperative, and that, consequently, the first defendant has not acquired any valid title as mutwalli. In the second place, they ask for a declaration that if the wakf