Bhargava, J.—This is a second appeal by the defendants against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Ajmer, dated 8th May, 1958, affirming the judgment and decree of the trial court in a suit for declaration. The following pedigree table would show the relationship of the parties : Motiji Toduji Gudarji Girdhariji Pertabji Gainduji (Mst. Pooni Defdt. No. 1 Ganeshji Medha (Died) Hazariji (Dead) Bansiji (Dead) Sheonath Ambalal Jethmal Mst. Kishni Defdt. No.3 Mst.Bala (Sundri Defdt. No.2) Chitar Chand Bhanu (Dead) Ramchandra Radha Kishan (Pltf. No.1) Gopi Kishan (Pltf. No.2) 2. Plaintiffs case was that amongst other properties, the members of the family of Motiji owned and possessed right to officiate as priests and to perform Sewa Puja and other religious ceremonies at the well known Temple of Savitri Mata at Pushkar and also to receive offerings and emoluments made and attached to the said temple. It was alleged that after the death of Gainduji his widow defendant No. 1 i.e., Mst. Pooni was entitled to officiate and perform the Sewa Puja and receive offerings and emoluments made and attached to the said temple for six months in a year, while the descendants of Partabji had similar rights to perform the Sewa Puja and receive offerings for the rest of the six months in the year. The term of Sewa Puja was fixed by rotation. It was alleged that Mst. Pooni executed a deed purporting to be a deed of release of her rights to officiate and receive the offerings and emoluments of the said Temple in favour of her daughter Mst. Bala Sundri defendant No. 2 on 3.1st July, 1945. It was further alleged that according to the custom prevailing in their community i. e., Parasar Brahmins of Pushkar, a daughter was not entitled to inherit the properties left by her father and as such Mst. Bala Sundri had no right, independent of or through her mother, to officiate at the religious ceremonies and to receive offerings and emoluments of the said temple. Bala Sundri had no right, independent of or through her mother, to officiate at the religious ceremonies and to receive offerings and emoluments of the said temple. The plaintiffs, claiming as reversioners of Gainduji therefore, sought a declaration that their reversionary right to succeed at all the religious ceremonies and perform the Sewa Puja and receive the offerings and emoluments made and attached to the Temple of Savitri Mata at Pushkar on the death of defendant No. 1, are not affected by the document dated 31st July, 1945 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2. Though at first defendant No. 1 admitted the claim of the plaintiffs in her written statement, yet subsequently, both defendants Nos. 1 and 2 contested the suit. Defendant No. 1 was allowed to amend her previous written-statement. Both these defendants denied the custom which excluded the daughter from inheriting her fathers property. They stated that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any relief. Execution of the document by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 was admitted. It was also stated that the deceased Gainduji had made a will on 16th October, 1933 bequeathing all his rights to his widow Mst. Pooni and as such plaintiffs had no right to file the suit, with regard to the rights of Mst. Pooni. Further it was stated that in the life time of the daughter and daughters son of Gainduji, plaintiffs had no right to file any suit. Following issues were framed by the trial court— (1) Is there a custom amongst the family members of parties whereby daughters are excluded from inheritance ? (2) Was possession of suit property delivered to defendant No. 2? If so, what is its effect on the suit ? (3) Are plaintiffs nearest reversioners of the late Gainduji and are they competent to file the present suit ? (4) Do the allegations made in para 8 of defendant No. 1s written statement constitute actionable undue influence ? If so, is the gift deed valid ? (5) Has the suit been undervalued ? (6) Is the court fee paid insufficient ? (7) Did Gainduji make any will as alleged by defendant No. 2 ? If so, what is its effect ? (8) Are defendants Nos. 2 and 3 entitled to special costs ? (9) To what relief are the plaintiffs entitled ? 3. (5) Has the suit been undervalued ? (6) Is the court fee paid insufficient ? (7) Did Gainduji make any will as alleged by defendant No. 2 ? If so, what is its effect ? (8) Are defendants Nos. 2 and 3 entitled to special costs ? (9) To what relief are the plaintiffs entitled ? 3. The trial court found issues Nos. 1 and 3 in favour of the plaintiffs. No finding was given on issue No. 2. Issue No. 7 was partly found in favour of the defendants and the execution of the will was held to be proved, but it was held that it did not confer any special rights on Mst. Pooni. In view of the findings on issues Nos. 1 and 3 plaintiffs suit was decreed by the trial court. 4. The contesting defendants preferred an appeal in the court of the District Judge, Ajmer and besides challenging the findings of the trial court as regards the custom excluding the daughter from inheritance, it was contended that the plaintiffs suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions of sec. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act which by then had come into force. The learned District Judge concurred with the findings of the trial court regarding the existence of custom excluding the daughter from inheritance. On the second issue the learned District Judge came to the finding after considering the evidence on record that after the deed of 1945, Mst. Pooni was not in possession of the properties and it was her daughter Bala Sundri who was actually in its possession. In that view of the matter, the learned Judge held that the suit by the plaintiffs was maintainable and sec. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, (hereinafter called the Act) did not apply in this case. The defendants have now come in second appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has raised the following contentions namely : (1) that in view of secs. 4 and 8 of the Act which had come into force before the judgment was passed by the first appellate court, plaintiffs suit cannot be decreed, inasmuch as on the opening of succession on the death of Mst. Pooai her daughter notwithstandings any previous custom to the contrary will succeed in preference to the plaintiffs. (2) that Mst. 4 and 8 of the Act which had come into force before the judgment was passed by the first appellate court, plaintiffs suit cannot be decreed, inasmuch as on the opening of succession on the death of Mst. Pooai her daughter notwithstandings any previous custom to the contrary will succeed in preference to the plaintiffs. (2) that Mst. Bala Sundri as a Hindu female being in possession of the property at the commencement of the Act which she had acquired from her mother by virtue of the release deed of 1945, became its full owner. (3) that by virtue of the will executed by the Gainduji in favour of Mst. Pooni which included the right of priesthood as well, the latter became its full owner and had a right to transfer it in favour of her daughter. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents urges that sec. 14 has no application in this case because Mst. Pooni had already parted with her possession and delivered it to Mst. Bala Sundri who being excluded from inheritance on the basis of family custom was not entitled to keep the property beyond the life time of her mother on whose death the property would revert to the plaintiffs. It is urged that the as release deed had been executed before the commencement of the Act, the plaintiffs were entitled to declaration claimed by them and it cannot be predicated as to which heir would survive on the death of the widow. As for the will it is urged that it does not bequeath Gaindujis right of priesthood of the Temple of Savitri Mata in favour of Mst. Pooni as there is no mention of it in the will. 7. The arguments in this Court mainly centered round the question as to the application of sections 14 and 8 of the Act to this case. Learned counsel for the parties cited several decisions of different High Courts in this connection, but in my view, this appeal can be disposed of on the first contention raised on behalf of the appellants. Cl. (a) of sec. 4 of the Act gives an overriding effect to the provisions of the Act-so as to abrogate the rules of Hindu law whether they were based on any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu law or any custom or usage as part of Hindu Law. Cl. (a) of sec. 4 of the Act gives an overriding effect to the provisions of the Act-so as to abrogate the rules of Hindu law whether they were based on any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu law or any custom or usage as part of Hindu Law. After the coming into force of the Act the property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of sec. 8 and other sections of Chapter II of the Act. According to sec. 8, the property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve firstly upon the relatives specified in class 1 of the Schedule which includes a daughter and son of a daughter in preference to the heirs mentioned in cls. (b), (c) and (d) of sec. 8. Therefore, even though a daughter might have been excluded from inheritance in the family of the parties on the basis of custom, yet after the commencement of the Act that custom will stand abrogated by virtue of secs. 4 and 8 of the Act. In matters of succession therefore, after the coming into force of the Act, the customs set up by the plaintiffs will have no force. In the present case the plaintiffs are the reversioners of Gainduji and would be entitled to succeed to his estate on the death of Mst. Pooni the limited heir. The plaintiffs have no vested interest and they have mere chance of succession on the death of the limited heir if they are alive. Though Gainduji had died before the Act came into operation, yet as he was succeeded by Mst. Pooni his widow, the succession to the estate would open on her death and the Act will apply to the case and the heir under the| Act will be entitled to succeed. Though Gainduji had died before the Act came into operation, yet as he was succeeded by Mst. Pooni his widow, the succession to the estate would open on her death and the Act will apply to the case and the heir under the| Act will be entitled to succeed. In a case arising under the Hindu Law of Inheritance Amendment Act, 1929, where a Hindu male whose property was subject matter of dispute had died before that Act came into force, leaving a widow who died after the Act came into force and the dispute was between the sisters of the male Hindu who had become heirs by virtue of that Act and some other reversionary heirs who but for the Act would have been entitled to succeed to the property in preference to the sisters, their Lordships of the Privy Council in Lala Dunichand vs. Anar Kali(l) observed that :— "The words dying intestate are descriptive of the status of the (deceased and have no reference and are not intended to have any reference to the time of the death of a Hindu male." It was further observed that : "The death of a Hindu female owner opens the inheritance to the reversioners, and the one most nearly related at the time to the last full owner becomes entitled to possession. In her lifetime, however, the reversionary right is a mere possibility, or spes successionis, but this possibility is common to them all, for it cannot be predicated who would be the nearest reversioner at the time of her death. There is no vesting as at the date of the death of last full owner and the question of who is the nearest heir or what is the class of reversionary heirs, falls to be settled at the date of the expiry of the ownership for life." Similarly, though Gainduji died before the Act came into force and the present suit also was filed before it, yet the question as to who is entitled to succeed to the estate of Gainduji would arise on the death of Mst. Pooni and the order of succession would be governed by the provisions of sec. 8 of the Act according to which the daughter and her son would be entitled to succeed in preference to the plaintiffs. Pooni and the order of succession would be governed by the provisions of sec. 8 of the Act according to which the daughter and her son would be entitled to succeed in preference to the plaintiffs. Therefore, apart from the question whether there was enlargement of the estate by virtue of sec. 14(1) of the Act, of either Mst. Pooni or her daughter Bala Sundri and also whether Gainduji had bequeathed the right of priesthood by a will in favour of Mst. Pooni, the question is whether in such circumstances as mentioned above a de-claratoty relief challenging the validity of the release deed should be granted to the plaintiffs or not. The attention of the first appellate court was not invited to this aspect of the case. Since the transferee in the present case is the daughter of the last male owner and would succeed to his property on the death of his widow and has also a son at the present moment the plaintiffs have very remote chances of succeeding to the estate of the deceased. In my opinion it would not be proper to grant them the declaratory relief sought by them. Granting or withholding of such relief is within the discretion of the court and in view of the circumstances of this case refusal of such relief to the plaintiffs would be the proper exercise of discretion. The Punjab High Court in the under mentioned cases. Dayal Jawala vs. Buja Biru (2), Gurmit Singh Partapsingh vs. Tarasingh Sahib Singb(3) Mst. Taro vs. Darshan Singh (4), S. Kuldip Singh vs. Karnail Singh Bakhsish Singh(5) also accepted the same principle and a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court in Smt. Banso vs. Charan Singh(6) in similar circumstances refused to grant relief to the plaintiffs. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken in that case. 8. As a result this appeal is allowed, judgment and decree of the courts below are set aside and the plaintiffs suit is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case parties shall bear their own costs throughout. 9. Prayer for leave to appeal to a larger Bench is refused.