Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 2594
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
B. PUGALENDHI, J.
Vadaveeranayakkar @ Vijayapandi - Appellant
Versus
Thangaraj & Others - Respondent
CRP(PD)(MD). No. 2403 of 2017 & CMP(MD). No. 11431 of 2017
Decided On : 23-08-2022
For the Petitioner:P. Shankar Ganesh, Advocate. For the Respondents:R2 to R5, G.V. Vairam Santhosh, Additional Govt. Pleader, R1, S. Madhavan, R6, C. Guhaseelrupan, Advocates.
The importance of providing evidence and legal basis for impleadment in a suit filed in a representative capacity.
Headnote:
Vadaveeranaicker - Denominational Community - Order 1 Rule 8(3) of CPC - Summary: The court discussed the suit filed by the plaintiff in the representative capacity, the permission granted to contest the suit, and the petitioner's application to be impleaded as the 2nd plaintiff. The court found that the suit was filed in the representative capacity, and the petitioner failed to provide evidence of a crowning ceremony or that the plaintiff acted against the community's interest. The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The suit was filed by the plaintiff in the representative capacity to declare the community as a denominational community and the temple as a religious institution. The petitioner sought to be impleaded as the 2nd plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was filed in the representative capacity, and the petitioner failed to provide evidence of a crowning ceremony or that the plaintiff acted against the community's interest.
Issues: Impleadment of the petitioner as the 2nd plaintiff in the suit filed in the representative capacity.
Ratio Decidendi: The suit was filed in the representative capacity, and the petitioner failed to provide evidence of a crowning ceremony or that the plaintiff acted against the community's interest.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed, and the petitioner was advised to file a separate suit if claiming to be the elected Vadaveeranaicker of the community.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 20.10.2017 passed in I.A.No.44 of 2016 in O.S.No.19 of 2014 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Periyakulam.)
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed as against the fair and decretal order dated 20.10.2017 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Periyakulam in I.A.No.44 of 2016 in O.S.No.19 of 2014.
2. The suit in O.S.No.19 of 2014 is filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff in the representative capacity to declare that the plaintiff's community is a denominational community holding Sri Jakkalamman Temple of Vadaveeranayakkars as a denominational religious institution of Raja Kambalathar and also for a declaration, declaring that the suit schedule property is meant for the service and upkeep of the suit temple and also for maintaining 100 sacred cows belonging to the temple and consequently for grant of permanent injunction and also for a direction to set aside the order passed by the 4th defendant dated 12.02.2014.
3. The 1st respondent/Plaintiff has filed the above suit in the representative capacity by obtaining a permission of the Court by filing an application in I.A.No.63 of 2014, under Order 1 Rule 8(3) of CPC. The Trail Court has also granted permission to the 1st respondent/plaintiff to contest the suit in the representative capacity. The suit is also ripe for trail. The order passed in the I.A.No.63 of 2014 permitting the 1st respondent/plaintiff to contest the suit in representative capacity has become final and it was not challenged.
4. The revision petitioner has filed the present interlocutory application in I.A.No.44 of 2016, under order 1 rule 8(3) of CPC to implead the petitioner as 2nd plaintiff in the above suit, which was dismissed by the Trail Court, by its order, dated 20.10.2017, that the petitioner cannot be added as the plaintiff in the above suit that the suit itself is filed in the representative capacity. Aggrieved over the same, the present civil revision petition is filed.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the main suit is filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff in the representative capacity as the sole representative of the entire Thottiyanayakkar Community of Vadaveeranaickerpatti. The petitioner is the real Vadaveeranaicker. As per the customary right, the Vadaveeranaicker post was offered to the petitioner's father, but, he was not willing to the post that he was already acting as kartha of the family and therefore, as per the wish of the entire family and the community members, the petitioner has become the Vadaveernaicker and the petitioner is also in-charge and control of the entire family of the Vadaveernaickerpatti and therefore he is legally entitled to protect the interest of the Vadaveeranaicker community and the 1st respondent/plaintiff is acting against the interest of Vadaveeranaicker and therefore, he is a necessary party and to be impleaded as the 2nd plaintiff in the above suit. As against the order of the 4th defendant dated 12.02.2014 appointing a fit person to Sri Jakkammal Temple, the petitioner and his father gave objection to the 5th respondent and fighting for the cause of the temple. The suit has been filed for the common cause of the plaintiff community and the outcome of the above suit would serve or affect the entire community. Therefore, impleading this petitioner as the 2nd plaintiff would strengthen the suit and would prevent the collusion between the respondents if any.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff submits that though the plaintiff is a retired employee and he is not holding any Government Post as on date and therefore, there is no bar for filing the suit as against the defendants in the suit. Moreover, the first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in the year 2014. The petitioner herein, on knowing very well about the filing of the suit, kept quite for all these years an
