1. The finding of the Subordinate Judge that the property belonged to the God installed in the temple is supported by strong evidence. Exhibit A itself says that the gift was to the God Gopalaswami. Similarly there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the finding that both the warams belonged to the temple.
2. This appeal is dismissed with costs.
3. Appeal Nos. 319 and 343 of 1918.
4. The question is whether the worshippers of a temple can bring a suit for a declaration that a permanent lease granted to the defendants who are Archakas in possession of the property is invalid, under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. The objection urged by the appellants is that a suit for a declaration must conform to the terms of Section 42 of the Specific Belief Act; and since the worshippers as a body or their representatives under Order 1 Rule 8 cannot be said to have any right as to property within the meaning of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, the suit is not maintainable. No' authority has been cited for the appellants in support of this proposition; on the other hand the ruling of the Privy Council in Robert Fisher v. The Secretary of State for India in Council I.L.R. (1898) Mad. 270 suggests that Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act is not exhaustive of cases in which declaratory suits may be maintained and it was held by the Full Bench of this Court, in Venkataramana Aiyangar v. Kasturi Ranga Aiyangar I.L.R. (1916) Mad. 212 : 31 M.L.J. 777 that such a suit as this was maintainable though the question whether it came within the provision of Section 4 2 of the Specific Relief Act was not raised then. There is also a ruling of this Court reported in Chidambaranatha Thamhiran v. Nallasiva Mudaliar I.L.R. (1917) Mad 124 : 33 M.L.J. 357 where a suit by the desciples of a mutt was held to be maintainable under Order 1 Rule 8 for a declaration as to the invalidity of an alienation of the mutt property. We hold the the suit was maintainable. Appeals No. 319 and 343 of 1018 are dismissed with costs.