- (1.) THIS is a civil second appeal.
(2.) BADLU Singh filed a suit against Mangtu Singh and Ramnath Singh in the court of the Munsif of Bharatpur on the 10th of July, 1950 for a declaration that the adoption of Ramnath Singh by Mangtu Singh was void. It was alleged by the plaintiff that he was the brother of the defendant No. 1, Mangtu Singh, and was thus entitled to succeed to him on his death. The adoption of Ramnath Singh by Mangtu Singh was challenged as being invalid but no specific pleas were taken to show on which grounds it was claimed to be so. Ramnath Singh contested the suit and alleged that his adoption by Mangtu Singh was valid and effective. Mangtu Singh accepted the claim of the plaintiff. Both the courts below decreed the suit on the ground that Ramnath Singh's adoption was invalid because he had been married prior to his adoption. Ramnath Singh has come to this court in second appeal and it has been urged on his behalf that the plaintiff had no cause of action to claim a declaration regarding the adoption of defendant No. 2 Ramnath Singh, because the right of the plaintiff to succeed to Mangtu Singh is only spes suceessinis and he cannot be said to have a cause of action for a suit under sec. 42 of the Specific Relief Act. Sec. 42 of the Specific Relief Act provides that - "any person entitled to any legal character or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief - Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so. " In order that a suit under sec. 42 may lie the plaintiff must allege that he is entitled to any legal character or to any right as to any property. In the present case the only right which the plaintiff has claimed is to succeed to Mangtu Singh on his death. Such a right cannot be regarded as anything more than a mere chance of succession and it cannot form a good basis for a suit under sec. 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The courts below were wrong in treating the plaintiff as being entitled to file a suit for a declaration under sec. 42, merely because he could succeed to defendant No. l. Mangtu Singh on his death provided he survived him. Mr. Mukherjee on behalf of the respondent has no answer to make to this point raised by the appellant. Under these circumstances it is obvious that the plaintiff has no cause of action for a suit of this nature. This appeal succeeds and the decree of the lower court is set aside. The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs throughout. .;