Chairman, T. N. Housing Board, Madras vs T. N. Ganapathy

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1990 Supreme(SC) 66

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L.M. SHARMA AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.
The Chairman, T.N. Housing Board, Madras, Appellant
Versus
T. N. Ganapathy, Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3002 of 1983, D/- 7-2-1990.
Advocates appeared :
Mr. G. Ramaswamy, Sr. Advocate (N. P.), Mrs. Anjani and Mr. K. Ramkumar, Advocates, for Appellant; Mr. P. S. Poti, Sr. Advocate and Mr. K. V. Sreekumar, Advocate with him, for Respondent.

Advocates:
ANJANI, G.RAMASVAMY, K.RAM KUMAR, K.V.SRI KUMAR, P.S.POTI

Headnote:REPRESENTATIVE SUIT BY ALLOTEE AGAINST HOUSING BOARD— OBJECT OF INCLUSION OF PROVISIONS AS CONTAINED IN ORDER 1 RULE 8
-the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 have been included in the Code in the public interest so as to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The condition necessary for application of the provision is that the person on whose behalf the suit is being brought must have the same interest. In other words either the interest must be common or they seek to get redressed. The object for which this provision is enacted is really to facilitate the decision of questions in which a large number of persons are interested, without recourse to the ordinary procedure. The provision must, therefore, receive an interpretation which will subserve the object for its enactment. There are no words in the Rule to limit its scope to any particular category or suits or to exclude a suit in regard to a claim for money or for injunctions, as in the case of The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. T.N. Ganapathy, AIR 1990 SC 642, where the basis of the demand of the appellant is equally applicable to all the allotees and the plea of the plaintiff is available to all of them. The trial Court was, therefore, perfectly right in permitting the plaintiff to proceed under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code. No body in this situation can complain of any inconvenience or injustice. On the other hand, the appellant is being saved from being involved in unnecessary repeated litigation. It is true each of the allotee is interested individually in fighting out the demand separately made or going to be made on him and, thus, separate cause of action arises in the case, but that does not make Order 1, Rule 8 inapplicable. The doubt if any has been clarified by the Explanation introduced by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976.

Judgement Key Points

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code are included in the legal framework to prevent multiplicity of litigation by allowing persons with the same interest or common grievance to sue or be sued in a representative capacity, even if they have different causes of action or individual interests. The key condition for applying this rule is the existence of a shared interest or common grievance among the parties involved (!) (!) (!) (!) . The Court clarified that persons represented in a suit under this rule need not have the same cause of action, and the rule's object is to facilitate the adjudication of questions affecting a large group with a common interest efficiently and justly (!) (!) (!) (!) .

Judgment

SHARMA, J:- This appeal by special leave arises out of a suit filed by the respondent in representative capacity for permanent injunction against the appellant Tamil Nadu Housing Board from demanding and collecting from the allottees any additional amount for settlement of lands with buildings in the colony Ashok Nagar fully described in the plaint.

2. In pursuance of a Housing Scheme the appellant-Board proceeded to settle a large number of residential plots to different groups of applicants including one described as low-income group. A number of allottees, including the plaintiff-respondent, were selected and settlement in their favour was made in 1963. A copy of the document executed separately in respect to the plots is on the record of this case as Exht. B-3, setting out the terms and conditions of the lease. The term as mentioned in the 15th clause, which quoted below, has been referred to by the parties in support of their respective cases:

"15. The lessor agrees to sell the property more particularly described in the schedule hereunder to the lessee for such price as the Administrative Officer of the lessor may at any time in his sole discretion fix, and at which time the Administrative Officer of the lessor is entitled to consider details regarding development charges, cost of amenities, cost of buildings, etc., and whether the price of the land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act together with suitable modifications thereto by the local laws has become final by a conclusive adjudication thereon by the concerned Tribunals and Courts. The final decision of the Administrative Officer of the lessor as to the final price of the property as determined under these presents is conclusive and binding on the lessee and the lessee agrees to purchase the property from the lessor at the said price on the terms and conditions hereinafter mentioned.

Excepting the fixation of price with reference to the claim or compensation adjudicated or awarded by Courts finally and conclusively with regard to the lands acquired under the scheme, the lesser shall fix the price of the property after taking into consideration the development charges, cost of amenities and buildings etc., within a period of three years from the date of allotment and which price is subject only to a revision on account of excess compensation if any awarded by Courts for the lands as aforesaid."

Tentative price for the property was fixed, subject to a final determination within a stipulated period under the agreement and the allottees occupied the properties on that basis. After a lapse of more than a decade fresh demands were made in 1975 threatening dispossession in case on non-payment, which led to the filing of the suit. It is stated in the plaint that the cases of all the allottees in low-income group of Ashok Nagar made under the lease deeds are identical and the plaintiff was representing them in asking for permanent injunction restraining the Board from enforcing the belated supplementary demands.

3. Besides, objecting to the maintainability of the suit, the defendant-Board pleaded that it was entitled in law to finally determine the correct price for the settlement of the properties even belatedly, and the challenged demands were perfectly valid. It was stated that the land for the scheme had been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, and until the final award of the compensation for the acquired lands was made, the value of the lands was made capable of being ascertained. The trial Court overruled the technical pleas, but, dismissed the suit on merits. The first appellate Court confirmed the decree.

4. The plaintiff filed a second appeal to the Madras High Court, and the Housing Board a cross-objection against the adverse findings. The High Court while confirming the maintainability of the suit reversed the finding on merits and passed a decree. The impugned demand included the excess compensation awarded by Courts for acquisition

Click Here to Read the rest of this document