CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU HOUSING VS T.N. GANAPATHY, 1990
FACTS:
In pursuance of a Housing Scheme the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras had allotted residential plots over the land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, to different groups of applicants including the low-income group on terms and conditions stipulated in the lease deed sometime in the year 1963. The tentative price for the property was fixed, subject to a final determination within a stipulated period under the agreement and the allottees occupied the properties on that basis. After a lapse of more than a decade of the allotment, fresh demands were made from the allottees in 1975. Objecting to the same, the respondent herein filed a suit for self and on behalf of all the allottees of the low-income group settled in the Colony named Ashok Nagar, praying for a permanent injunction restraining the Board from enforcing the demand.
The plaint stated that the cases of all the allottees in the low-income group of Ashok Nagar made under the lease deeds are identical and the plaintiff was representing them in asking for permanent injunction restraining the Board from enforcing the belated supplementary demands.
ISSUES:
The issues before the Supreme Court, in this case, are as follows-
· Whether the decision of the High Court on the merits of the dispute is erroneous?
· Whether the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure in any event are applicable to the case and the suit, as a representative suit, is maintainable?
RULE OF LAW:
Order 1, Rule 8 says
(1) Where there are numerous persons having the same interest in one suit,-
(a) one or more of such persons may, with the permission of the Court, sue or be sued, or may defend such suit, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all persons so interested;
(b) The Court may direct that one or more of such persons may sue or be sued, or may defend such suit, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all persons so interested.
(2) The Court shall, in every case where permission or direction is given under sub-rule (1), at the plaintiff’s expense, give notice of the institution of the suit to all persons so interested either by personal service, or, where, by reason of the number of persons or any other cause, such service is not reasonably practicable, by public advertisement, as the Court in each case may direct.
(3) Any person on whose behalf, or for whose benefit, a suit is instituted or defended, under sub-rule (1), may apply to the Court to be made a party to such suit.
ANALYSIS:
The court objected to the maintainability of the suit, and the defendant-Board pleaded that it was entitled in law to finally determine the correct price for the settlement of the properties and the challenging demands were perfectly valid. It was stated that the land for the scheme had been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, and until the final award of the compensation for the acquired lands was made, the value of the lands was not capable of being ascertained. The trial court overruled the technical pleas, but, dismissed the suit on merits. The first appellate court confirmed the decree.
In the second appeal, the Madras High Court while confirming the maintainability of the suit reversed the finding on merits and passed a decree. The impugned demand included the excess compensation awarded by courts for the acquisition of the land and also the development charges, cost of amenities and buildings, etc., without splitting up the two demands. The High Court held that it was open to the Board to determine within a reasonable time what portion of the additional demand represented the excess compensation awarded for the lands and to take steps for its realization after service of a demand notice on the allottee, but, granted a decree for an injunction in regard to the entire demand at the present stage as the two amounts have not been separately mentioned. The HC also pointed out the unexplainable delay of about a decade after the completion of constructions, of the Board in assessing the final amount on account of development charges, cost of amenities and buildings, etc. which was original to be done within a period of 3 years from the date of allotment.
On the question of maintainability of the suit in a representative capacity under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it has been contended that since the injury complained of is in regard to demand of money and that too by a separate demand against each of the allottees, giving rise to different causes of action, Rule 1 has application. The learned counsel proceeded to say that each of the allottees is not interested in what happens to the others. Therefore, only such allottees those of who have already been served with additional demands are entitled to maintain an action in court, and they also should do it by filing separate suits.
In the present case all the allotments in Ashok Nagar were made under the same Scheme and all the relevant facts are common. The basis of the impugned demand of the appellant is equally applicable to all the allottees and the plea of the plaintiff is available to all of them. The trial court was, therefore, perfectly right in permitting the plaintiff to proceed under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
It is true that each of the allottees is interested individually in fighting out the demand separately made or going to be made on him and, thus, separate causes of action arise in the case, but, that does not make Order 1. Rule 8 is inapplicable.
CONCLUSION:
The provisions of Order 1 of Rule 8 have been included in the Code in the public interest so as to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The condition necessary for application of the provisions is that the persons on whose behalf the suit is being brought must have the same interest. In other words either the interest must be common or they must have a common grievance which they seek to get redressed. The Court should examine whether there is sufficient community of interest to justify the adoption of the procedure provided under the Rule.
WRITER:
NAME: SANKET DHULL
COLLEGE: Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad
Comments