1. This is a second appeal from a decree of the lower appellate Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff in to. The circumstances are that the plaintiff sued on the ground that he was entitled to possession of property as he was representative of one Narain Das deceased, who was the last male holder of the property in question. The Court of first instance found that the property was held by the widow of Sunder Lal, father of Narain Das, after the death of Narain Das, a separated Hindu and that Mt. Govindi the widow in question, had the right of a Hindu widow. Mt. Govindi had made a sale of the property in dispute to defendants 2 to 10. The plaintiff had challenged the validity of that transfer and the Court of first instance enquired into the question of legal necessity and other matters raised by the parties very fully. It found that the sale was not for legal necessity, and granted a declaration to plaintiff as reversioner that the sale was void beyond the lifetime of Mt. Govindi. The lower appellate Court only dealt with ground of appeal No. 7 and on that ground it held that the Court of first instance was not justified in passing a declaratory decree without having the plaint modified. Accordingly it dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.
2. It is true that the plaint does not specifically ask for a declaratory decree, although it does ask for any other reliefs that may, in the opinion of the Court, be beneficial to the plaintiff.
3. It was also open to the Court, under Order 7, Rule 7, to grant general or other relief, whether it was applied for or no, The lower appellate Court has based its judgment on a ruling of their Lordships of the Privy Council reported in Janaki Ammal v. Narayansami Aiyar A.I.R. 1916 P.C. 117. In that case a plaintiff, claiming to be the reversionary heir, sued for an injunction and a receiver and further relief against a Hindu widow, whom he alleged to be committing waste of the property in which she had a life interest. It was laid down by the Privy Council that it would be futile to grant a declaration that the plaintiff was the next reversionary heir, because that question could only be decided on the death of the widow. The ruling, therefore, has no application whatever, to the case before us, because the declaration granted is an altogether different declaration. We consider that it was incorrect of the lower appellate Court to dismiss the suit on a mere technical ground, and that it would be a waste of time and money if the order were allowed to stand. We consider that, since the Court of first instance has gone into the question fully on various issues as to the validity or otherwise of this transfer, it is quite unnecessary to have a further suit on the same subject. Accordingly, we set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court for decision on the grounds of appeal other than ground 7, on which it has not come to any finding. The remand is made under Order 41, Rule 23. The costs of the lower appellate Court and of the proceedings of this Court will abide the ultimate result.