High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
Dakshinamoorthy & Others - Appellant
Versus
Parthasarathy & Another - Respondents
C.R.P.No.773 of 2004 and C.M.P.No.7458 of 2004
Decided On : 06 July 2005
Representative Capacity - Civil Suit - O.1 R.8 C.P.C - [O.S.No.89 of 1999] - The court discussed the conditions necessary to bring a suit within the rule of representative capacity and emphasized the importance of substantial objection raised by the parties in granting permission to sue in a representative capacity.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiffs filed a Suit for Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with the enjoyment of the Suit Property. They sought permission to sue in a representative capacity, claiming to represent the entire village community of Adi Dravidar and Irular community.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Plaintiffs could not be allowed to sue in a representative capacity due to substantial objections raised by the villagers, and declined the permission.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Plaintiffs should be permitted to file the Suit in a representative capacity under O.1 R.8 C.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of substantial objection raised by the parties in granting permission to sue in a representative capacity and found that the Trial Court rightly declined the permission.
Final Decision: The order of the Trial Court was confirmed, and the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed.
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 15.09.2000 of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Tirukalikundram made in I.A.No.463 of 1999 in O.S.No.89 of 1999, dismissing the Petition filed under O.1 R.8 C.P.C and declining permission to the Plaintiffs to sue in a representative capacity. Plaintiffs are the Revision Petitioners.
2. The Suit Property relates to Mayanapathai in Thathalur Village. Case of the Plaintiffs is that Pathway commences from the Village Road towards the Eastern direction till S.No.18. Firstly, it passes through Adi Dravidar Colony, then "B” Schedule Property in S.No.13/1 and then it passes through Irular Colony and it reaches S.No.18-Poromboke, which was initially used for burying dead. There is a graveyard for the villagers of Thathalur Village to the immediate East of village, in which both the Villagers and the Irular used to cremate and the buried the dead. From the time immemorial, the Villagers have been using the "B”Schedule Mayanapathai. The Plaintiffs, who are representing Adi Dravidar and Irular community of Thathalur Village have perfected their Title to "B”Schedule land - Mayanapathai by adverse possession, by virtue of their long and continuous and uninterrupted user of the Mayanapathai. While so, the Defendants are claiming to have purchased S.No.126/1A1 and S.No.9/11B. Vendors of the Defendants have never objected to the existence of "A” Schedule and "B” Schedule Mayanapathai. While so, the Defendants have started attempting to obliterate the existence of Mayanapathai, running in "B” Schedule Property. The Plaintiffs have sent their objection to Tahsildhar, Thirukalukundram Taluk during January 1999. The Revenue Officials have inspected the Suit Mayanapathai and noted that it is the only access to the burial ground. In this regard, the Defendants have been attempting to plough the "B” Schedule Property Mayanapathai. Hence, the Plaintiffs have also lodged a Police Complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, Thirukalukundram on 10.09.1999. Hence, the Plaintiffs have filed the Suit for Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants, their Men, Agents and Servants from in any way interfering with the enjoyment of the Suit Property - Mayanapathai by the Plaintiffs.
3. I.A.No.463 of 1999:- The Suit was filed in a representative capacity. According to the Plaintiffs, the First Plaintiff is the elected President of Thathalur Village; Second and Third Plaintiffs are the elected Councilors. The entire villagers – Adi Dravidar and Irular community are entitled to the Suit Mayanapathai and jointly interested in the Suit. Hence, the Plaintiffs have filed the Suit in a representative capacity. In this Application, the Plaintiffs sought for permission to sue in the representative capacity.
4. Resisting the Application, the Defendants have filed the Counter Statement contending that there is no burial ground in S.No.18. Only for the purpose of winning the case earlier filed in O.S.No.327 of 1996, the Plaintiffs have filed the present Suit. The Plaintiffs have no manner of right to file the Suit in a representative capacity.
5. On such Application filed under O.1 R.8 C.P.C, publication by beat of Tom Tom was effected. As many as 45 Objectors were present in the Court and raised objection for the Plaintiffs to file the Suit in a representative capacity. Upon hearing the objections raised by the Objectors, learned District Munsif declined permission to the Plaintiffs to sue in a representative capacity. Learned District Munsif was of the view that in view of the objections raised by the objectors, it would not be proper to permit the Plaintiffs to represent the entire village community of Adi Dravidar and Irular community.
6. Aggrieved over the dismissal of the Petition in I.A.No.463 of 1999, the Plaintiffs have preferred this Revision Petition. Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners / Plaintiffs has contended that when no evidence was recorded, the lower Cou
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.