1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff and arises out of a suit for an injunction restraining the defendants from committing certain acts of waste. Baijnath was the last male holder of this property. He died before the year 1924 leaving a mother of the name of Mt. Daulatakuar. The plaintiff in this claims to be a reversioner of this property as being a distant collateral of Baijnath. The suit was resisted by Mt. Daulata and her transferee upon the ground that the plaintiff was not the next presumptive reversioner of Baijnath. The defendants contend that the nearer heirs were Mt. Satraji, Mt. Sabraji, and Mt. Chabraji who were sisters of Baijnath and also three sisters' sons. Prior to the passing of the Act 2 of 1929, under the Hindu law as administered in these provinces, sisters were no heirs at all. Sisters' sons were heirs but they were not entitled to inherit the property till all the collaterals of the last male holder were exhausted. The effect of Act 2 of 1929 was to grant a right of inheritance to sisters and to place sisters and sisters' sons in the list of heirs immediately after the father's father and before the father's brother. Act 2 of 1929 received the assent of the Governor-General on 21st February 1929. It has been provided in Section 5 (1), General Clauses Act, (10 of 1897), that
where any Act of the Governor-General in Council is not expressed to come into operation on a particular day, then it shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the assent of the Governor-General.
2. Under the Hindu law the person entitled to challenge any acts of' waste or alienation by a life tenant like a Hindu mother is the next presumptive reversioner on the date of the suit. By operation of Act 2 of 1929, sisters and sisters' sons obtained a precedence in the order of succession over distant collaterals like the plaintiff. Under the circumstances the plaintiffs claim was bound to fail. A more remote reversioner is not entitled to sue unless he satisfies the Court that the nearest reversioner has colluded with the life tenant or has otherwise done acts precluding him from maintaining an action. We are of opinion that the view taken by Sulaiman, J., was perfectly correct and was the only possible view. We therefore dismiss this appeal with costs.