The only declaratory relief to which a contingent reversioner is ordinarily entitled when he disputes the alienation by qualified female heirs is that those alienations are not binding beyond the lifetime of the qualified female owner or owners. The other declarations given by the First Court decree (confirmed by the Appellate Court) namely, “that the plaintiff be declared entitled to inherit the property after the death of defendants 1 and 2” and “that 3rd defendant has no interest, etc.”, were unnecessary and discretion of the Courts as to declaratory reliefs was not exercised properly in granting those two declarations. The decrees will be modified by striking out the words relating to the above two declarations. The decrees are confirmed in other respects. As regards the contention that the release Exhibit I was invalid under Hindu Law, the only new argument brought forward by appellants' learned Vakil for reconsidering our decision in Thangavelu Pillai v. Doraisami Pillai was that the Hindu Law requires for the validity of a relinquishment by a co-parcener of his interest in the joint family property not only that he should accept a trifle but also that he should be in possession of ability to support himself otherwise by his own exertion. The texts of Manu and Yajnavalkya relied upon for this contention, when they speak of the relinquishment by an “able” co-parcener of his right, do not make his “ability” (to earn his living) the test of the validity of the relinquishment but intend to indicate (to repeat the language used in Thangavelu Pillai v. Doraisami Pillai that that will also afford “evidence of the deliberate and final character of the relinquishment.”
As the Second Appeal has failed substantially, the 1st appellant will pay the 1st respondent's costs.
Decree modified.