Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act is not exhaustive and a suit for a declaration can be maintained even if it does not satisfy the requirements of that section.

SATYANARAYANA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is from the Judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nellore, in O. S. No. 67 of 1955, which was filed by the appellant for a declaration that the term in the compromise decree in O. P. No. 3 of 1950, on the file of the District Court Nellore, that the lands set out in the plaint schedule are the personal properties of defendants 1 to 5 and not the absolute properties of Sri Kodandaratnaswami temple, is not valid and binding on the said temple.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff is a worshipper and as such interested in safeguarding the interests of the temple. Defendants 1 to 5 are members of a composite family. The 6th defendant is the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments.

( 3 ) THE case of the plaintiff is as follows: The properties set out in the plaint schedule comprise an extent of 50 acres of wet land and over 200 acres of dry land. They fetch an annual income of not less than Rs. 5,000. 00 to Rs. 6,000. 00. Under the compromise, the said lands were declared to be the personal properties of defendants 1 to 5 and a provision was made for payment of a small annuity of 12 1/2 putties of paddy and a sum of Rs. 600. 00 to the temple. By reason of this compromise, the temple has been reduced from the position of an owner to that of a mere charge-holder. The ownership of the lands did not fall to be decided, in O. P. No. 3 of 1950, which was filed only for a declaration that the temple was a private one. The compromise decree in relation to the schedule mentioned lands is not valid and binding on the temple because it is beyond the scope of that petition and the temple was not a party thereto. The right of the plaintiff, who was the 2nd respondent in the petition, to agitate the matter has been expressly reserved in the decree. As, however, the decree throws a cloud on the right of the temple to the schedule mentioned lands, the suit is filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that the provision in the compromise decree mat the lands are the personal properties of defendants 1 to 5, subject to a charge in favour of the temple for an annuity, is not binding on the temple.

( 4 ) DEFENDANTS 1 to 5 and the Commissioner for Hindu Religious Endowments resisted the suit on various grounds. The main defence of defendants 1 to 5 is that the temple is a private temple and that the suit lands are their personal properties and that the compromise decree is valid. They pleaded that the compromise is in the interests of the temple and as such it is binding. The defendants raised certain legal pleas, such as, that the plaintiff could not institute the suit for a declaration that the schedule mentioned lands formed part of the religious endowment and his remedy, if any, is to have recourse to the procedure indicated in Section 57 of Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1951; and that even otherwise, the suit was not maintainable for a bare declaration without the plaintiff asking for the consequential relief of possession. There was a further plea that the suit was barred by limitation.

( 5 ) THE 6th defendant pleaded that the compromise in O. P. 3 of 195o was a fair one and it was not open to any attack; that the compromise was one and indivisible; that the temple had been properly represented in the prior proceedings; that the suit for a bare declaration was not maintainable and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief, at any rate, against the 6th defendant.

( 6 ) ON these pleadings, the following issues were framed by the lower Court: (1) Whether the suit properties constitute the properties of the suit temple? (2) Whether the compromise decree passed in O. P. 3 of 1950, District Court, Nellore, is binding on the temple for any of the reasons alleged in the written statement? (3) Whether there is any cause of action for the plaintiff to file this suit? (4) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit? (5) Whether this suit for a bare d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document