Sreepada Venkataramanna alias Venkata Surya Narayana Moorthi vs Sreepada Ramalakshmamma

We agree with the lower Courts that the mere fabrication of an authority to adopt will not entitle the reversioner to claim a declaration that the authority is not genuine. The deed of authority by itself cannot affect the plaintiff''s right to any property, though the further act of adoption in pursuance of the authority would. The authority is not the proximate cause of any injury to the plaintiff''s right. Section 42 of the Specific Belief Act does not authorise such a suit and we think it would be going too far to hold that a document which is merely a preparation for a distinct and separate act which may give the plaintiff a right to declaratory relief would by itself entitle him to ask for a declaration. The observations cited from Brindaban Chandra Shaha v. Sureswar Shaha Pramanioh (1909) 10 C.L.J. 263 must be understood in connection with the facts of that ease. We dismiss the second appeal with costs.