JUDGMENT Bajpai, J. - 1. This second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is at the instance of the defendants challenging the decree, granting declaration in favour of the plaintiff No. 2 to the effect that the plaintiff No.2, being next reversioner, the defendants are not entitled to retain possession of the suit land after the death of plaintiff No. 1. passed by the Lower Appellate Court by reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing his suit, as not maintainable at the instance of plaintiff No.2 for such bare declaration so long as plaintiff No.1, having life-time interest, was alive. 2. The peculiar feature of this case is that plaintiff No.1. Bhagwantibai, daughter of Shivram had herself pleaded in the plaint that she lost her rights of possession of the suit land due to adverse possession of the defendant for more than 12 years. But by passing of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the plaintiff No.1 became entitled to recover possession of the suit property from the defendants. The plaintiff No. 2 claimed declaration that he was entitled to succeed the property of Shivram, being his daughter's son; and the defendants were not entitled to retain possession beyond the life time of plaintiff No. 1. So far as the claim of the plaintiff No. 1 is concerned it had no basis, when admittedly, she had lost possession over the suit property for more than 12 years before coming into force of Hindu Succession Act in 1956 and when she was not possessed of any property, it was not possible for her to contend that after the passing of the New Act, she became entitled to claim possession of such property even though she was not in possession of the same at the time of coming into force of the New Act and had already lost her claim due to adverse possession by the defendants for about more than 12 years. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that since plaintiff No. 1 had no case for claiming possession in view of the admitted position regarding adverse possession of the defendants and the plaintiff No.2, being only a next reversioner, he had no cause of action to institute or maintain the suit only for the bare declaration that he would be entitled to recover possession after the death of plaintiff No. 1. The lower Appellate Court, however, reversed the judgment and decree and partially decreed the suit by granting declaration that plaintiff No.2 would be entitled to recover possession after the death of plaintiff No.1 and the defendants will not be entitled to retain possession beyond the life-time of plaintiff No.1. It was held by the Lower Appellate Court that the possession of the defendants, adverse to the limited owner plaintiff No.1, could not prejudice the rights of the next reversioner plaintiff No.2. 3. The claim of the plaintiffs was opposed by the defendants on various grounds, but since the decision of this appeal rests on the short point of maintainability of such a suit, it is next necessary to deal or decide the other aspect if it is found and held that such a suit itself was not maintainable. During the course of arguments before this Court, the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs had also filed an application seeking permission to amend the plaint on the ground of subsequent event that plaintiff No. 1 had died during pendeney of second appeal and as such the plaintiff No.2 could claim a decree for possession along with the other next reversioner Smt. Mangli, daughter of Bhagwantibai. Thus, by amendment, the plaintiff No.2 wants to add Mangli, the other reversioner as co-plaintiff and to claim possession instead of declaration on the ground of the subsequent event of the death of plaintiff No.1 on 5-9-1969, which gives cause of action for claiming such relief, The learned counsel for the plaintiff respondents, however, fairly and rightly conceded that the question of permitting such amendment could not arise if it held that the suit as framed and instituted was itself not maintainable. 4. Thus, the only question which remains to be decided is regarding the maintainability of suit for declaration at the instance of plaintiff No. 2 filed during the life time of plaintiff No.1, the limited owner, It is evident that the present suit was not against any alienation by the limited owner, nor was there any case of claiming injunction restraining any waste and damage to the property. Suit for declaration may be of three kinds: (i) suits for declaration of plaintiff's reversionary right; (ii) suits for declaration that the alienation by the limited owner is not binding; and (iii) suits by the next reversioner even during the life time of the limited owner for claiming injunction against the waste and damage apprehended to the property so that the property may be kept intact. It would suffice to observe that the suits, as covered by item No. (1) above are not maintainable. The mere presumptive reversionary heir, who has mere possibility of succession or spes succession is upon the death of the limited owner, is not entitled to maintain a suit for declaration of his presumptive reversionary rights; the reason being that the actual succession will depend upon the state of things existing when the limited owner dies. But in case of the suits covered by items Nos. 2 and 3 above, the position is different. Though it may not be obligatory upon the, reversioners to bring such suits in the sense that alienation by the limited owner could not deprive them of their rights to recover possession of the property alienated after the death of the limited owner, they can maintain a suit for declaration that the alienation made will not be binding and get the cloud cast on their rights as next reversioner clear. Similar will be the position in cases where the property in question is in danger of being wasted. In such cases also, the next reversioner could file a suit and obtain a decree for injunction if the Court is satisfied that there was positive and cogent reason for apprehending such damage or waist to the property. 5. Here, in the present case, the plaintiffs themselves came with the case that the defendants have been in adverse possession for more than 12 years and the simple declaration, which was sought, was that after the life time of the limited owner, the plaintiff No.2 will be entitled to claim possession as next reversioner. I am of the opinion that the suit as framed and instituted was not at all maintainable. Neither the plaintiff No. 1, nor the plaintiff No.2 had any cause of action to bring such a suit at that time. I am of the opinion that the suit as framed and instituted was not at all maintainable. Neither the plaintiff No. 1, nor the plaintiff No.2 had any cause of action to bring such a suit at that time. It is true that now plaintiff No.1 had died during the pendency of second appeal and the plaintiff No.2 might have got a cause of action for bringing a suit for securing possession by impleading necessary parties who might also be entitled to claim possession along with plaintiff No. 2, being the next reversioners. But this will not justify to uphold the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court in a suit which was not at all maintainable from its very inception. The new cause of action will require a fresh trial with other claimants as parties. 6. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs referred to the commentary or Mulla's Hindu Law in paragraphs 108, 201, 202, 205 and 207. I have gone through the aforesaid commentaries and do not find any warrant for supporting the contention that plaintiff No.2 could maintain a suit for simple declaration as a presumptive reversioner of his reversionary rights. Perusal of the commentaries and various cases cited therein clearly indicate that suits at the instance of the next reversioners had been held to be maintainable during the life time of the limited owner only in such cases where there was alienation of the property by the limited owner and a declaration was sought that the same will not bind or when the suit was for claiming injunction against the apprehended waste or damage. The learned counsel for the respondents urged that the aforesaid proposition regarding maintainability of the suit can be extended also to cases where there had been adverse possession against the limited owner even though it was a settled proposition according to law that the adverse possession against the limited owner was not to affect the rights of the next reversioner. It is true that it has been held repeatedly by the Privy council and also by the Supreme Court, as observed in Ramkristo Mandal and another v. Dhankisto Mandal, AIR 1969 SC 204 , that adverse possession against the limited owner will not affect the rights of the next reversioner. There can be no quarrel on this proposition. It is true that it has been held repeatedly by the Privy council and also by the Supreme Court, as observed in Ramkristo Mandal and another v. Dhankisto Mandal, AIR 1969 SC 204 , that adverse possession against the limited owner will not affect the rights of the next reversioner. There can be no quarrel on this proposition. But the point relevant for the purpose of this appeal is regarding the maintainability of the suit in the absence of any alienation or apprehended waste or damage to the property only on the basis of mere possibility of succession upon the death of the limited owner. For the reason that the actual succession in such cases always depends upon the state of things existing when the limited owner dies, and it being impossible to predict before that event as to who would be the actual reversionary heir on the death of the limited owner, such suits at the instance of the next reversioners, during the life time of the limited owners are not maintainable. 7. It is, therefore, held that the suit, as framed and instituted by the plaintiffs was not at all maintainable and could not be decreed for bare declaration as done by the lower Appellate Court in such a suit. The judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court are, therefore, set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed with costs. Consequently, the application for the proposed amendment is also rejected. However, this will not, in any way, prejudice the rights, if any of the plaintiff No.2 or any other next reversioner to bring a suit for claiming necessary relief on the basis of the cause of action, which might have accrued to them on the death of plaintiff No.1 Bhagwantibai. 8. The appeal is, therefore, allowed with costs. The respondents-plaintiffs shall bear their own costs and the costs of the appellant-defendants throughout. Counsel's fee Rs. 50/- if certified.