Court caseAIR 1967 SC 436

Property endowed to a temple had been the subject of an earlier suit in which the person managing the temple entered into a compromise decree that, in effect, surrendered the deity's rights in favour of private persons. Worshippers and persons interested in the temple sued for a declaration that the compromise decree was not binding on the deity, and for consequential relief. The defendants contended that the plaintiffs were not persons 'entitled to a legal character or a right to property' within s. 42 of the 1877 Act, so that no declaration could be made.

The Supreme Court held that the section is not exhaustive of the cases in which a declaratory decree may be made. It merely regulates the class of suits it describes; the courts have power to grant a declaration in other cases independently of the section, provided the general requirements of a civil suit (s. 9 CPC) are met and the discretion is soundly exercised. A worshipper, as a person interested in the endowment, is entitled to sue for a declaration that an alienation or compromise by the manager is not binding on the deity, since the deity, a juristic person, can act only through others and would otherwise be without remedy. The suit was maintainable.