Failure to adhere to procedural requirements under Order I Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code vitiates judgment, necessitating fresh trial for community representation claims.

JUDGMENT :

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

1. This is a very unfortunate case languishing in the Courts litigating over the rights of a community over the suit schedule properties from 1989 onwards.

2. The appellant before me is the plaintiff in the suit. He laid O.S.No.186 of 2002 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge at Tiruvannamalai. The said suit sought for the relief of declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to manage the suit schedule mentioned properties on behalf of Sadukula Telungar Sangam and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also sought for an injunction that the defendants 1 and 2 should not encumber the property shown as 'A' Schedule and also sought for recovery of possession of the 'C' Schedule property alienated by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the third defendant.

3. The suit was presented by the plaintiff claiming that it had been formed for the members of Sadakula Telungars residing in 14 villages around the town of Tiruvannamalai. It would plead that the defendant is also such a Sangam consisting of Sadakula Telungars, but it is an unregistered one.

4. The prior history is as follows:-

The first defendant viz., Ganapathy Naidu, as the President of the Sadakula Telungar Sangam had presented O.S.No.59 of 1989 claiming title over the suit schedule mentioned properties. The said suit came to be decreed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, a regular appeal was preferred before the learned District Judge at Tiruvannamalai and it was taken on file as A.S.No.195 of 1997. The appeal came to be dismissed on 13.10.1998. It is pertinent to note that though the lower appellate Court concurred with the findings of the Court below that the plaintiff/defendant therein does not have exclusive right, title or interest over the property, it granted a declaration that the suit properties belong to Sadakula Telungar Naickers living in all the 14 villages. It also granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the peaceful administration of the Sangam.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants therein preferred a Second Appeal before this Court in S.A.No.1832 of 1998. This Court, while dismissing the Second Appeal on 06.02.2002, held as follows:

"9. The Courts below also found that the plaintiff is in possession of the property be leasing it out. The lower appellate Court, after appreciating the evidence, correctly found that all the suit properties are absolute properties of Sadakula Telungar Naickers who are living in 14 villages mentioned in the plaint. On the other hand, the lower appellate Court has not granted the decree as prayed for by the plaintiff/Sangam. The lower appellate Court has not declared that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff/Sangam. So, the plaintiff/Sangam or its members, cannot claim any exclusive right or title to the suit property as the decree passed by the lower appellate Court has become final insofar as the plaintiff/Sangam is concerned. But only, "Sadakula Telungar Naickers" residing in the said 14 villages, are entitled to the said suit properties even if they are members of the plaintiff/Sangam or defendants/Sangams. When such a decree has been passed, I am not able to understand as to how the defendants are aggrieved by the said decree. If the defendants also come within the said qualification, they are also entitled to get the be