ORDER
Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25th July, 1996 passed by the High Court of (sic) in second appeal. 2. Mst Shariffan, appellant No. 1 executed a Will dated 7th December, 1973 in favour of appellant No. 2, Munshi, of the property which she had inherited from her husband Sharfu. Respondents filed a suit seeking declaration that appellant No. 1, beinga limited owner of the suit property, is incompetent to alienate by testamentary disposition or any other way in favour of appellant No. 2, hence to declare the Will dated 7th December, 1973 to be invalid. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of respondents deciding all the issues as against the appellants. The High Court also dismissed the appeal. During the pendency of the second appeal, the High Court directed the Trial Court to submit a report on the question, whether any custom governing the parties is in existence which excludes the daughter from inheriting the properties and what is the effect of this custom. The Trial Court submitted the report. Based on this, the High Court dismissed the second appeal in favour of respondents. One of the questions raised in the second appeal was, the suit itself was bad. The plaintiff brought the decree suit for declaration that defendant No. 1 (appellant No. 1) being limited owner, is incompetent to alienate either by testamentary disposition or in any other way and, consequently, the Will dated 7th December, 1973 executed by her in favour of defendant No. 2 (appellant No. 2) is invalid. The High Court came to the conclusion that at the time of filing the suit it may be said, the relief sought was speculative but in view of of the fact that during the pendency of second appeal as Mst. Shariffan, appellant No. 1 died on 21st January, 1980, the Will came into effect and the Court could not take into consideration the subsequent event during the pendency. Hence treating this subsequent event, came to the conclusion that after the death of Mst. Shariffan, the suit does not remain speculative. It further records, the ancestral property in the hands of appellant No. 1 was governed by the customary law of Punjab and Haryana in the matters of succession and alienation and according to this customary law, it should go to the collaterals of the husband of Mst. Shariffan after death and not to her daughter. Hence, we find, concurrent findings are recorded against the present appellant. The main submission on behalf of learned Counsel for the appellants is, the Courts below ignored the law in decreeing the suit in favour of respondents under section 34 of the Specific Relief Act as a suit is not maintainable in case a declaration is sough t against the defendants without seeking any specific relief. 3. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the three judgments, which are before us, we find, the point raised here was not raised earlier before any of the three Courts. Hence, we do not feel it appropriate to permit such point to be raised at this stage Hence, we do not find any sustainable ground raised before us which calls for our interference with the judgments passed by the Courts below. For the aforesaid reason, the present appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs. Contempt Petition (C) No. 219 of 2000 in C.A. No. 8268 of 1997: The contempt petition is dismissed as not pressed. Appeal dismissed with costs & Contempt Petition dismissed as not pressed.