Declaratory relief for temple property upheld where a compromise decree was void and the deity was not properly represented.

A worshipper may seek a declaration that a compromise decree affecting temple properties is void and not binding on the deity, because the statutory provision on declaratory relief is not exhaustive and such a claim protects the religious endowment. The compromise decree was also held invalid and not binding on the deity because the deity was not properly represented by a disinterested next friend or legally authorised representative, and the Commissioner's supervisory role did not amount to representation in court. The decree further went beyond the scope of the original statutory proceeding by introducing a declaration on the nature of the properties.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a suit by a worshipper seeking a declaration that a compromise decree affecting temple properties was not binding on the deity was maintainable under the law of declaratory relief; (ii) Whether the compromise decree entered in proceedings concerning the temple was invalid and not binding on the deity because the deity was not properly represented and because the relief granted went beyond the scope of the statutory proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether a suit by a worshipper seeking a declaration that a compromise decree affecting temple properties was not binding on the deity was maintainable under the law of declaratory relief.

Analysis: The statutory provision governing declaratory suits was held not to be exhaustive. A declaration that an act or decree is void and not binding on a deity, where the effect is to restore the deity's rights in trust property, was treated as a substantial relief outside the narrow ambit of the provision. The worshipper, as a person interested in the temple, was competent to seek such relief in protection of the religious endowment.

Conclusion: The suit was maintainable and was not barred by the provision governing declaratory relief.

Issue (ii): Whether the compromise decree entered in proceedings concerning the temple was invalid and not binding on the deity because the deity was not properly represented and because the relief granted went beyond the scope of the statutory proceedings.

Analysis: The deity was not represented in the earlier proceedings through a proper and disinterested next friend or through the person legally entitled to represent it. The Commissioner's supervisory power did not amount to authority to represent the deity in judicial proceedings. In addition, the compromise introduced a declaration as to the nature of the properties which was beyond the scope of the original statutory proceeding and could not validly be made therein.

Conclusion: The compromise decree was invalid and not binding on the deity.

Final Conclusion: The decree of the trial court was set aside and the respondent was entitled to a declaration that the compromise decree was not valid and not binding on the temple, with the appeal dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A declaration that a compromise decree is void and not binding on a religious endowment may be maintained by a worshipper where the statutory provision on declaratory relief is not exhaustive, and such a decree cannot bind the deity if it was passed without proper representation of the deity and beyond the scope of the proceeding.

---