Judgment :- The petitioner appeared in person and submitted his arguments. 2. The prayer in this writ petition is to issue a mandamus striking down Secs.18 to Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 as ultra vires of the Constitution of India hence null and void or giving a ruling that sole surviving co-parceners, who follow that Law have to be maintained notwithstanding absence of such provisions in the aforesaid. 3. Even the prayer as framed in the writ petition cannot be granted by this Court. There question of issuing a mandamus striking down certain sections of a legislation mandamus declaring that certain persons will be entitled to maintenance even in the of a provision in a legislation to that effect. 4. There is another obstacle to the maintainability of this writ petition, which is as follows: this petition the two respondents are the Union of India represented by the Ministry of Law and Justice and the Secretary, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi. The petitioner claims to be entitled to maintenance from his mother, he has not chosen to implead her as a party to the writ petition. A writ cannot be the abstract or in the vacuum declaring any particular provision of law to be void or vide: Santlal v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 485. The person who is interested would be opposing the petition with regard to the grant of relief in this writ petition mother of the petitioner, but he has not impleaded her as a party. Hence this writ not sustainable on the ground of nonjoinder of necessary party. 5. Apart from that the petitioner had filed earlier W.P.No.6835 of 1987. In that petition prayer was to strike down Secs.18 to 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, as null and void and ultra vires of the Constitution. That writ petition was dismissed Court on 11.4.1988 after hearing the petitioner. Without challenging the correctness order by way of an appeal, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the very relief. The writ petition is clearly barred by the principle of res judicata and it is not the petitioner to sustain this writ petition, when the order rendered in the earlier writ holds the field. Even otherwise, on the merits of the case, the petitioner ’ s contention be accepted. The writ petition is clearly barred by the principle of res judicata and it is not the petitioner to sustain this writ petition, when the order rendered in the earlier writ holds the field. Even otherwise, on the merits of the case, the petitioner ’ s contention be accepted. It is the argument of the petitioner that in Kamalammal v. Venkatalakshmi, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1340, the right of the sole surviving coparcener has been recognized upheld by the Supreme Court. He placed reliance on paragraphs 7 and 8 of the judgment that case. The Supreme Court held in that, case, after referring to the earlier text of Hindu Law, that a disqualified member of the joint Hindu family is entitled to take and enjoy the whole estate, when becomes the sole surviving member of the family. The Supreme Court referred to provisions of the Hindu Inheritance (Removal of Disabilities) Act 71 of 1928 and pointed that prior to the said Act, a disqualified heir, who was congenitally a deaf-mute, become birth a coparcener with his father, so that the ancestral family properties vest in him as surviving coparcener on the death of his father without other male issue. The Supreme Court also referred to Saraswati Vilasa written by Prataparudradeva, a recognised authority Southern India and held that the liability to provide for maintenance of the disqualified under the Hindu Law fell into two categories; one from, the existence of a relationship independent of the possession of any property and the other on possession property. According to the Supreme Court, a disqualified heir falls in both categories vis the right to maintenance. The ruling of the Supreme Court does not apply to the case. As per the ruling of the Supreme Court, the petitioner is entitled to a share property and he may be entitled to the entire estate as the sole surviving coparcener the present writ petition is to nullify certain sections of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act on the ground of unconstitutionality. If the petitioner places reliance on the judgment the Supreme Court his remedy is to file a suit for recovery of possession of his properties, according to him he is the only person entitled thereto, or to file a suit for partition, according to him other persons are also entitled to a share therein. He has already suit for partition. If the petitioner places reliance on the judgment the Supreme Court his remedy is to file a suit for recovery of possession of his properties, according to him he is the only person entitled thereto, or to file a suit for partition, according to him other persons are also entitled to a share therein. He has already suit for partition. Admittedly, the petitioner became blind only at the age of 29 and not congenitally blind. After the Hindu Inheritance (Removal of Disabilities) Act, 1928, congenitally blind person is not disqualified under Hindu Law to inherit property. Hence, petitioner cannot in any sense of the term call himself a disqualified heir and thus himself within the ruling of the Supreme Court. Since according to him, he is a sharer property he cannot claim any maintenance from any person. If at all, his right proceed against the person in possession and recover his share of the property. 6. For the above reasons, this writ petition is without any merit and hence it is There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.