IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 8(3) of C.P.C., the applicants must have the same interest as that of the defendants in a representative suit.

The dismissal of two applications filed by different applicants to get themselves impleaded as supplemental defendants in response to a publication made under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the C.P.C.”) in a representative suit is under challenge in these original petitions. Since the issue involved in both the original petitions is the same, I am disposing of the original petitions together.

2. The State of Kerala instituted a suit for a declaration of title, recovery of possession and permanent prohibitory injunction as OS No. 72/2019 before the Sub Court, Pala (for short, “the trial court”) against four defendants. The 1st defendant is Ayana Charitable Trust, the 2nd defendant is M/s.Harrison Malayalam Ltd., the 3rd defendant Mar Athanasius Yohan Metropolitan is the trustee, and the 4th defendant Dr.Sini Punnoose is the managing trustee of the 1st defendant Trust. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaint schedule properties belong to the State of Kerala. However, the defendants claim that the 2nd defendant who is the predecessor in interest of defendants 1, 3 and 4 obtained a purchase certificate in respect of the plaint schedule properties and it sold the plaint schedule properties to the 1st defendant. But, according to the plaintiff, the defendants did not get lawful title over the plaint schedule proprieties since they were vested with the State of Kerala as per the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The plaintiff initiated proceedings against the defendants 1 and 2 and others under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 to recover the properties. The Special Officer appointed under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act passed an order dated 28/5/2015 observing, inter alia, that the Government could proceed under the Land Conservancy Act against the plaint schedule properties. The defendants challenged the order of the Special Tahsildar before this court and this court set aside the order of the Special Tahsildar on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and the plaintiff was granted liberty to approach the civil court. It was thereafter that the plaintiff instituted the suit to declare its title over the plaint schedule properties, to recover possession of the same from the 1st respondent trust and everybody claiming under it, to restrain the defendants 1, 3 and 4 by a permanent prohibitory injunction from creating documents to alienate the plaint schedule properties or committing any waste therein, and to realise damages from the 1st defendant for illegal use and occupation of the plaint schedule properties.

3. In paragraph 27 of the plaint, it is pleaded that the plaint schedule properties are in the possession of the 1st defendant trust and the 4th defendant is the managing trustee of the 1st defendant. The 4th defendant represented the 1st defendant trust in the legal proceedings including the writ petition claiming that defendants 3 and 4 are legally entitled to represent the trust. The proclaimed object of the 1st defendant trust being Gospel work involving hundreds of people including defendants 3 and 4, they are interested in the properties of the trust including the plaint schedule properties. The 1st defendant claimed to be a religious minority in legal proceedings. Therefore, permission was sought to institute the suit against defendants 3 and 4 on behalf of and as the representatives of such persons interested under Order 1 Rule 8 of C.P.C. A separate application as IA No.875/2019 under Order 1 Rule 8 was also filed by the plaintiff. The trial court allowed IA No.875/2019 and the plaintiff was permitted to sue against defendants 3 and 4 in the representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8. The trial court then directed the plaintiff to give notice of the institution of the suit by publication in Malayala Manorama daily. Accordingly, notice was published in Malayala Manorama daily dated 11/7/2020. In the notice it was specifically stated that the suit was filed against the defendants as a representat