the same" – is the meaning of the second substantial question of law formulated at the time of admission. The same pertains to the sustainability of the prayer for declaration in the absence of a prayer to set aside the document. By no stretch of imagination, the same can be construed as a ground for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. In the present case, a will executed by P.Rangaswamy Gounder was sought to be cancelled by his first wife Masathal after the death of Rangaswamy Gounder and also after the death of Subbathal, the second wife of the said Rangaswamy Gounder. The will made by Rangaswamy gounder on 07.12.1983 was registered as document No.59/1983 on the file of Sub Registrar, Singanallur. Though the properties described plaint 'B' schedule had been purchased jointly in the names of Rangaswamy Gounder and his second wife Subbathal and the plaint 'c' schedule property had been purchased in the name of Subbathal and the plaint 'D' schedule property had been purchased jointly in the names of Rangaswamy Gounder and his first wife Masathal, all the plaint schedule properties were dealt with in the said will, as if Rangaswamy Gounder had the absolute power of disposal. As per the plaint averment, the said Masathal and Subbathal had also signed the will as confirming parties. Under such circumstances alone, document No.104/1994 came to be registered on 06.09.1994 as one executed by Masathal purporting to cancel the will of Rangaswamy Gounder dated 07.12.1983 registered as document No.59/1983 on the file of Sub Registrar, Singanallur after the said will had come into force on the death of Rangaswamy Gounder. Claiming that wife of Rangaswamy Gounder, namely Masathal, had no right to cancel the will made by Rangaswamy Gounder after the same came into effect on his death, more so, when no power of such cancellation had been given to Masathal, the first respondent/plaintiff has chosen to seek a declaration that the deed of cancellation allegedly executed by Masathal on 06.09.1994 is not only null and void, but also not binding on the plaintiff. We can't say that there is no cause of action for seeking such a declaration. Whether such a prayer for declaration without a prayer for setting aside the registered document is sustainable, is yet another question, which does not pertain to the realm of consideration in a petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Hence the second substantial question of law is also answered accordingly against the appellant.
