1. Suit for cancellation of a sale deed regarding land allegedly purchased by a parent society through its branch and subsequently merged. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 809
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.K. AGRAWAL, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.
S.N.D.P. Sakhayogam – Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Kerala Atmavidya Sangham & Ors. – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL No.7068 OF 2010
Decided On : 05-09-2017
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Jurisdictional issued are required to be tried, at any stage in the proceedings.
Jurisdictional issued are required to be tried, at any stage in the proceedings.
Subject
Civil Law - Representative Suit
Act Referred
Headnote
Administration of justice – Issue of jurisdiction of court going to the root of the case – If brought to the notice of court, required to be tried, at any stage of the proceedings. (Para 18)
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order I, Rule 8 – Plaintiff seeking permission to prosecute the suit in the representative capacity – Sanction granted in absence of any objection from defendants – Plaintiff being a juristic person, trial court ought to examine whether the expression "person" occurring in Rule 8 also includes “juristic person" – Secondly, trial court ought to see whether ingredients of rule 8 are satisfied – Matter remanded to trial court. (Para 19, 21, 22, 23)
Facts of the case:
Respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) filed a civil suit (O.S. No. 213/1978) against the appellant herein (defendant No.1) and one Kunju Panicken Narayanan-defendant No. 2. The suit was for a declaration that the sale deed (Document No.399) dated 09.02.1978 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 in respect of the suit land be cancelled as being void and bad in law.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff filed first appeal which was dismissed.
The High Court allowed the second appeal and decreed the suit.
Finding of the Court:
Jurisdictional issued are required to be tried, at any stage in the proceedings.
Result: Appeal allowed. Matter remanded to trial court.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiff claims ownership through parent-branch relationship and merger; Defendant contends the organizations are independent and the sale deed is legal. (Para 8 , 9 )
3. Courts failed to analyze whether a juristic person can invoke Order 1 Rule 8 CPC and if the suit's reliefs benefit the public at large. (Para 17 , 19 , 21 , 22 )
4. Jurisdictional issues, including the capacity of a juristic person to maintain a representative suit under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC, must be decided. (Para 18 , 21 , 22 )
5. Appeal allowed; previous judgments set aside; case remanded to Trial Court to determine jurisdictional issues regarding representative capacity and ownership. (Para 16 , 24 , 25 )
6. Can a juristic person, such as a society, file a representative suit under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
The court held that it must be examined whether the expression person occurring in Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code includes a juristic person. (Para 21 )
7. What is the primary purpose and requirement for granting relief in a representative suit under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC?
The provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code are meant essentially for the benefit of the public at large for the grant of any relief. (Para 22 )
8. At what stage can an issue of jurisdiction that goes to the root of a case be tried?
An issue of jurisdiction which goes to the root of the case must be tried at any stage of the proceedings once it is brought to the notice of the court. (Para 18 )
JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) This appeal is filed by the first defendant against the final judgment and order dated 27.01.2005 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in S.A. No.299 of 1987 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below were set aside and the defendants were given two months’ time to deliver the property to the plaintiff failing which the plaintiff shall be entitled to put the decree in execution.
2) In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the suit, which has now travelled up to this Court, it is necessary to state the relevant facts infra.
3) The appellant herein is defendant No. 1 whereas respondent No. 1 is the plaintiff. So far as respondent Nos. 2 to 8 are concerned, they were made parties in appeal as legal representatives of original defendant No. 2, who died pending this appeal but later by order dated 14.01.2009 their names were deleted from the array of the parties. They are, therefore, no longer parties to the lis arising in the case.
4) Respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) is a Society registered as such under the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Act 12/1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) having their branches all over the State of Kerala. It is claimed to be running charitable institutions all over the State through their branches. It has its own bye-laws to run the charitable institutions.
5) The appellant (defendant no 1) is alleged to be another body of persons known as "Panoor 47 Atma Vidya Sabha" having their place of working at a place called "Panoor" in the State of Kerala whereas defendant No. 2 was one Kunju Panikan Narayanan (since dead). He was alleged to be President of defendant No. 1 (appellant).
6) The dispute in this case relates to land bearing Survey Number No. 991/1, situated in village Thrikkunnapuzha, District Alappuzha as described in detail with specifications in the Sale Deed, registered as Document No. 399-dated 09.02.1978(Annexure-P) hereinafter referred to as the "suit land".
7) Respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) filed a civil suit (O.S. No. 213/1978) against the appellant herein (defendant No.1) and one Kunju Panicken Narayanan-defendant No. 2. The suit was for a declaration that the sale deed (Document No.399) dated 09.02.1978 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 in respect of the suit land be cancelled as being void and bad in law.
8) It was, inter alia, averred in the plaint that respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) had purchased the suit land by registered sale deed (Document No.2904) in the year 1951 for running their charitable activities through defendant No. 1 which, according to them, was their branch of which defendant No. 2 was the President at all relevant time. It was alleged that the suit land was purchased by respondent No. 1 being the parent organization in the name of the appellant (defendant No. 1) through defendant No. 2. It was alleged that since the appellant (defendant No. 1), after some time had stopped their activities due to some reasons, all the properties stood in the name of the appellant (defendant No. 1) was merged as provided in the bye-laws with respondent No. 1(plaintiff), i.e., parent body. It was alleged that defendant No. 2, who claimed to be the President of defendant No.1, had no right, title and interest nor had any authority to sell the suit land to anyone much less to defendant No. 1 vide sale deed dated 09.02.1978. On these averments, the suit was filed seeking declaration in the reliefs.
9) The appellant (defendant No.1) denied the claim set up in the plaint and defended the sale deed executed in their favour by defendant No. 2. It was contended that the sale deed dated 09.02.1978 is legal and proper. According to defendant No.1, both (plaintiff and defendant No. 1) were always independent organizations having no connection between them in any manner. Some more facts were also averred in the writt
