Skip to content


Veeramachaneni Ramaswamy and Thirteen ors. Vs. Soma Pitchayya and Five ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1920)ILR43Mad410
AppellantVeeramachaneni Ramaswamy and Thirteen ors.
RespondentSoma Pitchayya and Five ors.
Cases ReferredChidambaranatha Thambiran v. Nallasiva Mudaliar I.L.R.
Excerpt:
specific relief act (i of 1877), section 42 - temple property--permanent lease--invalidity of lease--suit for declaration by worshippers--maintainability of suit. - .....i, 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. (1899) 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 a full bench of this court in venkataramana ayyangar v. kasturiranga ayyangar i.l.r. (1917) mad. 212, that such a suit as this is maintainable, though the question whether it came within the provision of section 42, specific relief act, was not raised then. there is also a ruling of.....
Judgment:

Abdur Rahim, J.

1. The question is whether the worshippers of a temple can bring a suit for the declaration that a permanent lease granted to the defendants, who are Archakas in possession of the property, is maintainable under Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. 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 I, 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. (1899) 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 a Full Bench of this Court in Venkataramana Ayyangar v. Kasturiranga Ayyangar I.L.R. (1917) Mad. 212, that such a suit as this is maintainable, though the question whether it came within the provision of Section 42, Specific Relief Act, was not raised then. There is also a ruling of this Court--Chidambaranatha Thambiran v. Nallasiva Mudaliar I.L.R. (1918) Mad. 124--where a suit by the disciples of a mutt was held to be maintainable under Order I, Rule 8, for a declaration as to the invalidity of an alienation of the mutt property. We hold that the suit was maintainable.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //