SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(SC) 66

K.RAMASWAMY, L.M.SHARMA
Chairman, T. N. Housing Board, Madras – Appellant
Versus
T. N. Ganapathy – Respondent


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

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 tim















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top