1. The appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs, who alleged themselves to be the reversionary heirs of one Ramlal, for a declaration that a Will executed by Musammat Munga, widow of Ramlal, was null and void as against the interests of the reversioners on the ground that Musammat Munga had no authority to execute it. The Court below decreed the suit. In appeal, the only ground pressed for our consideration out of the six grounds in the memorandum of appeal is that the plaintiffs had no cause of action for bringing the suit and we are referred to a decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Pirthipal Kunwar v. Guman Kunwar 17 C. 933 : 17 I.A. 107. In the later case of Thakurain Jaipal Kunwar v. Indar Bahadur Singh 26 A. 238 : 8 C.W.N. 465 : 14 M.L.J. 149 : 6 Bom. L.R. 495 : 31 I.A. 67 the facts of which are almost on all fours with those of the present case, their Lordships of the Privy Council held that the execution of a Will by a limited owner, such as a Hindu widow, affords, as a general rule, no sufficient reason for granting a declaratory decree. But in the circumstances of the case before them, their Lordships held that they would not interfere with the decision of the Courts below which had been passed in deliberate exercise of the discretion entrusted to them by law. In the pleadings of the present case, the defendant set up a title in the widow wholly inconsistent with the right of the reversioners. Under these circumstances, following the ruling just referred to, we think we should not interfere with the decision of the Court below. We dismiss the appeal with costs.