H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is plaintiffs appeal arising out of judgment and decree dated 15-4-1994. The plaintiff has filed the suit seeking declaration of certain deeds i. e. , sale deeds, gift deeds and the like which are mentioned in Schedule-A to the plaint and are alleged to have been executed by defendant-respondent 1 are illegal, unlawful and not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff-appellant claimed herself to be the daughter of defendant/respondent-1 and filed the above suit for declaration on the basis of spes-successionis. ( 2 ) THE trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit of this nature cannot be filed by a person who has got no right, title and interest in the property involved during the lifetime of the transferor simply on the basis of spes-successionis. The trial court took the view that the suit on the basis of spes-successionis cannot be filed during the lifetime of the transferor by the prospective heirs and particularly when defendant No. 1 the transferor admits to have executed the deeds. Feeling aggrieved from the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff-appellant has filed this 1st appeal. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted before me that he had filed the "suit on the ground that defendant-1 (respondent-1) had lost his mental capacity and he was the person of unsound mind. The trial court recorded a finding against the plaintiff-appellant in this matter. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant very fairly submitted that plaintiff-appellant filed the suit on the ground that plaintiff appellant's right to succeed the property will be affected and she is likely to be adversely affected if the deeds are not cancelled. That at present the transferor, who is the father is alive, but it is stated that the transferor was of unsound mind and the court below recorded the incorrect finding in that regard. I have applied my mind to the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant. Suit for declaration of some right or for declaration can be filed by a person having the right or interest in the property or having such status or character, as he seeks to be declared and it is only when a person establishes his right, title and interest in the property he may get the decree. Suit for declaration of some right or for declaration can be filed by a person having the right or interest in the property or having such status or character, as he seeks to be declared and it is only when a person establishes his right, title and interest in the property he may get the decree. Until he has got some existing right or interest in the property, he is not entitled to institute the suit for declaration and particularly a suit of the nature, of the present one. Defendant 1 the transferor who had been owner of the property, and after whose death the plaintiff may succeed and claim any right or title in the property in dispute, is very much alive even now, and he has admitted the execution of deeds in suit. If the deeds have been obtained by playing fraud or mis-representation on transferor by the transferee, then it is and has been open for the transferor to seek for cancellation thereof by filing suit for decree for cancellation in his own name and if he-the transferor happens to be a minor or person of unsound mind, then suit could be filed by or in the name of minor or the person of unsound mind through his or her next friend. ( 4 ) AS regards the question of filing of a suit on behalf of persons of unsound mind, provisions of Order 32, Rule 15 provide the procedure and the manner in which such a suit is to be filed. Order 32, Rule 15 reads as under:"rules 1 to 14 (except Rule 2-A) to apply to persons of unsound mind. Rules 1 to 14 (except Rule 2-A) shall, so far as may be, apply to persons adjudged before or during the pendency of the suit, to be of unsound mind and shall also apply to persons who, though not so adjudged, are found by the court on enquiry to be incapable, by reason of any mental infirmity, of protecting their interest when suing or being sued. " ( 5 ) ACCORDING to Rule 15 of Order 32, the Rules 1 to 14 excepting Rule 2-A will apply in the matter of filing the suit by or against the persons of unsound mind. " ( 5 ) ACCORDING to Rule 15 of Order 32, the Rules 1 to 14 excepting Rule 2-A will apply in the matter of filing the suit by or against the persons of unsound mind. Rule 1 of Order 32, reads as under: "minor to sue by next friend Every suit by a minor shall be instituted in his name by a person who in such suit shall be called the next friend of the minor. " a reading of Rule 1 of Order 32 along with Rule 15 per se shows that a suit on behalf of the person of unsound mind or on behalf of a minor has got to be filed by the minor or by the person who is alleged to be of unsound mind in the name of that very person viz. , the minor or the person of unsound mind through the next friend. It cannot be filed by the next friend in his own name claiming his right or title in future or in spes-successionis at all, unless and until he is able to prove that he has got some existing right in the property itself, separate and distinct from the right or interest of the minor or that of a person of unsound mind. It is well settled principles of law that when a power is given to do a certain thing or when a right is conferred to do something and the manner for doing that has also been prescribed, then that act has got to be done in that manner alone, and not otherwise. Keeping the above noted principles in view, 1 am of the opinion that if the suit had to be filed on the ground that defendant 1 had been a person of unsound mind, the plaintiff, when she had no right in herself in respect of the property during the lifetime of defendant 1, the suit could only have been filed by and on behalf of the defendant 1 and in the name of defendant 1 through the next friend. If, for a moment, it be taken, without expressing any opinion one way or other with respect to the finding of the court below at this juncture, that defendant 1 was of unsound mind, then also only method through which the suit could be filed was one prescribed under Order 32, Rule 1 read with Rule 15 and no other. The present suit as it has been filed, the plaintiff-appellant in her own name alleging the defendant no. 1 transferor to be of unsound mind and claiming non-existent right, in herself i. e. , a. claim of spes-successionis in herself, then the suit is not maintainable. It is well settled that no suit is maintainable when there is no such right exists at the time of filing of suit that has been claimed. When I so hold, I find support from the decision of their Lordship of Privy Council, in the case of Mirza Mohammed Aga Ali v Widow of Bat Mukund, hon'ble Sir Barnes Peacocks on behalf of the court opined and laid down as under: "their Lordships are clearly of opinion that in this case the decree did not vest any right to property for which he is suing and consequently that he cannot maintain the suit". In the case of Ram Bhajan Kunwar and Others v Gur Charan kunwar, the Division Bench has in the context of suit of cancellation of a Will (executed by a living person) filed by the plaintiff of that case against his father, his brother and his brother's son, laid it down as under"so long as the testator is living he may at any moment cancel his Will and make a totally different disposition of his property. This power he possesses upto the hour of his death provided he be then competent to execute a valid will. It is idle to contend that a party can come unto court and successfully claim to have the Will of living person set aside. Unfortunately the learned subordinate Judge was of different opinion. In his judgment he finds that suit for cancellation of Will may be maintained. In this view we are wholly unable to agree with him. It is idle to contend that a party can come unto court and successfully claim to have the Will of living person set aside. Unfortunately the learned subordinate Judge was of different opinion. In his judgment he finds that suit for cancellation of Will may be maintained. In this view we are wholly unable to agree with him. "the above observation can well apply to the case of cancellation of deeds such as sale deeds executed by a living person and that living person so thinks he may file suit for cancellation of deed on grounds available to him and no other person can file such a suit in his lifetime and particularly when plaintiff asserts no right in himself except spes-successionis. ( 6 ) IN Mulla's Hindu Law, XVI Edition at page 83, Section 30 with inference to spes-succcssionis, it has been observed:"the right of a person to succeed as heir on the death of a Hindu (person) is a mere spes-successionis. That is a bare chance of succession; it is not a vested interest. "that being the position, the suit on the basis thereof could not be maintained in the lifetime of defendant No. 1 by the plaintiff. ( 7 ) THE maintainability of the suit prima facie no doubt has to be looked on the basis of the allegations made in the plaint, and when the allegations in the plaint were such, that on the basis thereof the court should have thrown out the suit as being not maintainable not having been filed by the proper person then there was no jurisdiction or occasion for the court to go into the other pleas. In this view of the matter, I find that the trial court's decision to the effect that the suit itself has not been maintainable at the instance of the plaintiff-appellant, does not suffer from any error of law or jurisdiction. The learned counsel submitted that the issue involving question of fact and law had to be decided in this case after the recording of evidence and so court below erred in deciding the question of maintainability of suit holding that defendant No. 1 has not been the person of unsound mind, I find little substance in the contention and I do not find it necessary to go into it. As I mentioned earlier that the plaint allegations have to be looked into to determine the question of maintainability the suit which are to the effect that defendant No. I/transferor is a person of sound mind and that he is alive and the plaintiff claims spes-successionis and filed the suit in her own name and not in the name of transferor just contrary to requirements of Order 32, CPC, there was no need for the court at that juncture to go into the question of unsoundness of mind. Firstly, the allegations have to be looked into and the title of the suit. When title of the suit per se showed that it was not filed by the person of unsound mind but by a different person, it means the suit had not been filed in accordance with law and requirements of law and filed by the person who is not authorised to file the suit. The suit could be thrown out as not maintainable at the plaintiff-appellant's instance and in my opinion, the suit was rightly been thrown out by dismissal thereof on preliminary issue as being not maintainable. On the other issues, there was no question and jurisdiction vested in the court to record the findings on merit and those findings may be taken not to be relevant and to be honest and not binding on parties at later stage. ( 8 ) WITH these observations, the appeal is hereby dismissed. --- *** --- .