JUDGMENT 1. The Respondent in this appeal has taken a preliminary objection to the effect that the appeal is not sufficiently stamped. It appears that in the Court below the Plaintiffs paid in court-fees the sum of Rs. 1,175 upon the prayers of khas possession, the appointment of a Receiver, and a declaration of their right as reversioners. In this Court they have paid only Rs. 20 seeking from us a declaration as to the deed of gift and the appointment of a Receiver. At the time of argument the prayers were further curtailed and the appeal was expressly limited to a declaration that the deed of gift of the 25th April 1906 is not valid and not operative against the Plaintiffs after the death of Defendant No. 1. This being so the appeal is sufficiently valued, and the objection as to court-fee fails. The facts of the case are that four brothers Mahipat, Saligram, Hetnarain and Digpal were at one time joint owners of family property. Saligram died, and was succeeded by his son Deonarain, and the family property was then partitioned and the uncles and nephew became separate. Deonarain then died leaving a widow Jaibasi and a daughter Sukulbati. The Plaintiffs are the sons of Digpal and Maim to be at present the reversionary heirs of Deonarain, after the deaths of his widow and daughter, together with Saudagar', the childless son of Mahipat. In 1906, Jaibasi and Sukulbati executed a deed of Tamliknamah in favour of Saudagar: and the Defendants now ask for a declaration that the deed is void as against the Plaintiffs. They originally asked for possession, on the ground, as we understand it, that Jaibasi and Sukulbati have divested themselves of a right to possession and had not conferred it on Saudagar; but in this Court the ground taken is that though they may have given Saudagar a right to possession during their lives the Plaintiffs have a right to a declaration that the deed is not operative as against them. The pleadings are so framed as to include this case, and the real point that has been argued before us is that such a declaration should not be made in this case. 2. The pleadings are so framed as to include this case, and the real point that has been argued before us is that such a declaration should not be made in this case. 2. Before considering this point, however, we must notice a defence on the facts that was raised in the Court below, and that has been raised again hero, though it has not been much pressed. This is that Mahipat, the father of Saudagar, and Saligram, the father of Deonarain were the sons of one mother, and that Hetnarain and Digpal were the sons of another mother, and that consequently Saudagar is the reversionary heir to Deonarain to the exclusion of the Plaintiffs. The lower Court has not decided this issue because he has held that the Plaintiffs have no cause of action, but he has expressed an opinion that the four brothers were brothers of the whole blood. On considering the evidence in the case we have no hesitation in adopting the same view, and we hold that the brothers were all born by the same mother. This brings us to the real point at issue, as to which the Plaintiffs' contention is that a reversioner on a limited estate is entitled to a declaration that a deed is invalid if its invalidity depends on facts which may be obscured by lapse of time, and that the invalidity or otherwise of the tamliknamah depends on the question whether the brothers were sons of the same mother or not, which can be more easily settled now than later. He relies on the decision of Phear, J., in Sheo Pergah Ray v. Injore Tewaree 21 W.R. 433 (1874) and on Illustration (c) of sec. 42 of the Specific Relief Act as authority for this proposition. He relies on the decision of Phear, J., in Sheo Pergah Ray v. Injore Tewaree 21 W.R. 433 (1874) and on Illustration (c) of sec. 42 of the Specific Relief Act as authority for this proposition. The Respondent on the other hand contends that while the proposition of law put forward by the Appellants is unimpeachable, it does not apply to the facts of the present case; for what the Plaintiffs seek is a declaration that they are now reversionary heirs by reason of being related to the Defendant's branch of the family by whole and not by half blood, and the Court will not make a declaration to establish heirship before the succession in regard to which it is claimed has opened out, a proposition for the truth of which he refers as to Katama Natchier v. Dorasingha Tevar L.R. 2 IndAp 169, 191 : s.c. 15 B.L.R. 83 (1875), if authority be needed. Neither side disputes the law propounded by the other : and the simple question we have to decide is what is the declaration that is sought for in this case. As to this we have no doubt that the Plaintiffs are asking among other things to have the tamliknamah declared inoperative as against themselves, and the fact that such a declaration must be founded on reasons that would support a declaration that they are heirs to Deonarain, were it open to us to make such a declaration, cannot shut him out of his right to a declaration as to the validity of the document in question. This fact has been overlooked by the Court below, where the case was argued with a much greater complexity of issues than we have had to deal with. The appeal is accordingly allowed, the judgment and decree of the lower Court are set aside, the suit is decreed in favour of the Plaintiffs and it is declared that the deed in question is inoperative against them. The Plaintiffs are entitled to their costs in this Court and the Court below.