1. Land classification as estate under Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 — Validity of suit following Section 80, Code of Civil Procedure notice. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1963 Supreme(SC) 223
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K.Sarkar : J.C.Shah : Raghubar Dayal
State Of A.P.
Versus
Gundugola Venkata Suryanarayana Garu
Case No. : 483 of 1961
Date of Decision : 9/12/63
Advocates Appeared: Achar G.K. : Ramamurthi M.K. : Sachthey R.N.
Advocates:
G.K.ACHAR, M.K.RAMAMURTHY, R.N.SACH
G.K.ACHAR, M.K.RAMAMURTHY, R.N.SACH
A suit against the government is not defective under Section 80 CPC if the plaintiff who institutes the action served the notice, even if another person joined in serving the notice but did not join the suit. Permission for representative suits is required for institution, not for serving notice.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 80 and Order 1 Rule 8 - Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 - Section 3(2)(d) - Madras Estates Rent Reduction Act, 1947 - Notice to Government - Representative Suit - Definition of 'estate' - The object of notice under Section 80 is to provide the government an opportunity to reconsider its legal position; while the section is imperative, it must be reasonably construed and venial errors should not defeat a just claim (Para 11) - If the person instituting the suit has served the notice, the fact that another person joined in serving the notice but did not join the suit is not a defect (Para 12).
(B) Order 1 Rule 8, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Representative Suit - Permission of the court is required for instituting a representative suit and not for serving the notice under Section 80 (Para 15) - The person permitted to sue is the plaintiff; those represented do not become plaintiffs in the suit (Para 13).
(C) Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 - Section 3(2)(d) - For land to be considered an 'estate', the grant must be of the entire village or a named village (Para 8).
Facts of the case:
The government applied rent reduction provisions to certain lands on the basis that the grant was of the whole village and thus an 'estate'. Two landholders served a statutory notice under the Code of Civil Procedure on behalf of all affected landholders. Subsequently, one of the two individuals filed a representative suit with the court's permission. The trial court found the land was not an 'estate' but dismissed the suit as the notice was served by two persons while the suit was filed by only one. The High Court reversed this, holding the suit was not defective.
Findings of Court:
The evidence established that the grant was not of the entire village, as certain lands were excluded and treated as separate holdings. The suit was maintainable because the plaintiff had served the statutory notice, and the fact that another person joined in the notice but not the suit did not render the proceedings defective.
Issues: (1) Whether a suit against the government is liable to be dismissed if only one of the two persons who served the Section 80 notice institutes the suit in a representative capacity; (2) Whether the disputed lands constitute an 'estate' under the relevant land act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that Section 80 CPC requires the identity of the person who issues the notice with the person who brings the suit; however, if the plaintiff has served the notice, the addition of another person to the notice who does not join the suit is not a fatal defect. In representative suits, the permission of the court is necessary for the institution of the suit, not for the service of the notice.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the lands constitute an estate under the Madras Estates Land Act and whether the suit is maintainable due to lack of identity between notice-giver and plaintiff. (Para 4 )
3. Evidence indicates the grant was not for the entire village, thus not an estate; Section 80 notice is valid if the plaintiff is among those who served it. (Para 7 , 8 , 11 , 12 , 14 )
4. A suit is not defective under Section 80, CPC, if the plaintiff served the notice, even if others joined the notice but did not join the suit. (Para 12 , 14 )
5. Appeal dismissed; the lands are not an estate and the suit is not defective under Section 80, Code of Civil Procedure. (Para 16 )
6. Does a grant of only a part of a village constitute an estate under Section 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908?
No. If evidence establishes that the original grant was not of the entire village or a named village, it does not constitute an estate under the meaning of the Act. (Para 8 )
7. Is a suit against the government defective under Section 80, CPC, if the notice was served by multiple persons but the suit is filed by only one of them?
No, provided the person instituting the suit is one of the persons who served the notice, and the cause of action and relief claimed remain the same as in the notice. (Para 12 , 14 )
8. Does a representative suit under Order 1 Rule 8, CPC, require the names of all represented persons to be listed in the Section 80 notice?
No. Section 80 requires the name, description, and residence of the plaintiff, not the persons they seek to represent. Only court permission is required to institute a representative suit. (Para 13 )
9. Must court permission for a representative suit be obtained before serving a notice under Section 80, CPC?
No. Permission of the court is required for instituting a representative suit, not for serving the statutory notice upon the government or a public servant. (Para 15 )
J.C.SHAH, J.
(1) TWO questions fall to be determined in this appeal: (1)whether the suit instituted by the respondent G.V. Suryanarayana Garu against the State of Madras was liable to be dismissed because of absence of identity between the persons who served the notice under s. 80 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the person who sued; and (2)whether the lands in dispute covered by title deed No. 279 Mallinadhapuram constitute an `estate` within the meaning of s. 3(2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908.
(2) BY order dated 11/01/1950 the government of Madras applied the provisions of the Madras Estates Rent Reduction Act 30 of 1947 to the lands in the village Mallinadhapuram on the footing that the grant was of the whole village, and hence an estate within the meaning of s. 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, and thereby sought to prevent the Inamdars from collecting contractual or customary rent from the tenants who held the lands under the Inamdars.
(3) G.V. Suryanarayana Guru and Prabha Yegneswara Sastri who collectively hold 2 3/3 out of the 8 vrittis constituting the inam thereupon served a notice under s. 80 Code of Civil Procedure upon the government of the State of Madras. The notice recited that the cause of action for the proposed suit arose on the issue of the notification dated 11/01/1950 published in the Fort St. George Gazette on 16/05/1950 and on subsequent dates when the government of Madras through its officers attempted to interfere with the collection of rent due from tenants, and called upon the government of Madras to withdraw the notification and to refrain from collecting at reduced rates rent from the tenants and cultivators in Mallinadhapuram or other-wise interfering with the rights of ownership of the inamdars in Mallinadhapuram, and informed the government that in default of compliance with the notice, a suit to establish the rights claimed would be filed against the State of Madras. The notice set out the names, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and Prabha Yegneswara Sastri. The government of Madras failed to withdraw the notification, and G. V. Suryanarayana Garu alone instituted, for himself and on behalf of all Inamdars of Mallinadhapuram, Suit No. 45 of 1953 in the court of the Sub-ordinate Judge, Srikakulam against the State of Madras for a declaration that `the agraharam of Thungathampara alias Mallinadhapuram covered by T. D. No. 279 is not an estate within the meaning of Section 3(2)(d) of Madras Estates Land Act, and the Notification No. 2970 of the government defendant published at page 1399 of Fort St. George Gazette under Madras Estates Rent Reduction Act XXX of 1947 and subsequent proceedings thereunder are therefore void, illegal and ultra vires.`
(4) THE State of Madras contended that the grant in favour of the predecessors of the Inamdars was of the entire village and of a named village which had been enfranchised as such under title deed No. 279 and on that account the village constituted an estate as defined in s. 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act and also as defined in Madras Act XXX of 1947, and the plaintiffs claim was not maintainable. It was also contended that the notice served by the plaintiff under s. 80 Code of Civil Procedure was `riot valid and proper in law`.
(5) THE Trial court held that the original grant in inam was not of the entire village, and was not so confirmed or recognized by the government of the Province of Madras and therefore within the meaning of s. 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act it was not an `estate`, and the Madras Rent Reduction Act, 1947 had no application thereto, but the suit was still liable to be dismissed because the notice served by the plaintiff and Prabha Yegneswara Sastri was `invalid and defective inasmuch as the suit` was filed by the plaintiff alone.
(6) IN appeal the High court of Andhra Pradesh at Guntur (which since the constitution of the State of Andhra was the proper court to e
