Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
38 S.Ct. 254, 257, 62 L.Ed. 664 (1918). On appeal, the Fifth Circuit interpreted the phrase “arising under the instrument” in the declaratory judgment act to mean that the Texas courts could declare invalid only particular provisions of a will that has already been admitted to probate. Kausch, 470 F.2d at 1070. The court found that under the declaratory judgment act Texas courts “have no power to conduct an independent inquiry into the validity of the will as a testamentary instrument.” Id. Consequently, the federal court found that it lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiffs claim. Other courts have foúnd that actions to declare a will invalid under state declaratory judgment acts do not lie for various reasons. See Corron v. Corron, 40 Ohio St.3d 75, 79, 531 N.E.2d 708, 712 (1988)  (quoting Davidson v. Brate, 44 Ohio App.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that where the question to be resolved in the declaratory judgment action will be decided in a pending action it is inappropriate to grant a declaratory judgment
B. holding that an action challenging the validity of a will may not be brought under ohios declaratory judgment act
C. holding that garcia applies to section 101106 but holding that a declaratory judgment action is not brought under the texas tort claims act
D. holding that the declaratory judgment act is remedial only and the party seeking declaratory relief must have an underlying cause of action
E. holding that the declaratory judgment act is a procedural device
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.