1. The plaintiff asks for a declaration that he, as heir of his father, is entitled to the trusteeship of a certain temple. It is alleged that the father has resigned his trusteeship and that the plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to succeed through the father is still alive.
2. The defendant in the suit is the daughter of Reddi Puntulu, who was appointed trustee by the founder of the trust, who vested the trusteeship in him as an estate of inheritance. This Reddi Puntulu left him surviving a widow, who is still alive and also other daughters besides the defendant who are also still alive. He, however, appointed his daughter's son, the plaintiff's father, by Will to be his successor.
3. The plaintiff's right will depend upon the effect of the alleged resignation by his father, whether in the life-time of his father the plaintiff can succeed, and whether the father himself acquired a title by prescription which would descend upon his heirs.
4. The widow and the other daughters of Reddi Puntulu and the plaintiff's father are all interested in the decision of these questions, but none of them are parties to the suit and the plaintiff himself does not allege in the plaint that he is in possession of the property.
5. In these circumstances, we think that the suit is one in which, in the exercise of the discretion vested in the Court, no decree for a declaration ought to be given.
6. We may add that the prayer for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to revenue registry is one which is wholly inadmissible in a suit to which the Collector is not a party. The suit can, therefore, be viewed only as one for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to the trusteeship of the temple and its endowments.
7. For the above reasons, we set aside the decree of the lower Court and dismiss the plaintiff's suit with costs throughout.