Does a representative suit under Order I Rule 8 CPC require a common interest or common grievance among the persons represented?
Coram: Justice N. Sathish Kumar · Justice M.Jothiraman
A representative suit under Order I Rule 8 CPC requires a common interest or common grievance among the persons represented.
Yes. A representative suit under Order I Rule 8 CPC requires a common interest or common grievance among the persons represented. Here the plaintiffs sued for partition without impleading the legal heirs of the pattadars named in the settlement registers and without pleading how the rights devolved on them; a genealogy tree unsupported by documentary evidence gives no credence, and the suit was held not maintainable.
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 — s.7(9) — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Or.1 r.8 — Public trust — Suit by the Executive Officer — Representative suit — Declaration of title — Partition — Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 — s.7(9) — Maintainability of a suit by the Executive Officer — Held: An Executive Officer, whose powers are assigned by the Act, the Rules or a Scheme settled under it, can sue in the name of the religious institution with the approval of the competent authority. (¶41, 43) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Or.1 r.8 — Common interest is the condition of a representative suit — Held further: A representative suit for partition is not maintainable where the plaintiffs neither prove that they are the legal heirs of the recorded pattadars nor establish a common interest or common grievance among those represented. (¶48) Revenue records — Resettlement — Clubbing of subdivisions — Held further: The merger of subdivisions into a single survey number at a resettlement cannot change the character of ownership or possession, and the holders of one subdivision do not thereby become owners of the whole. (¶59, 64) Declaration of title — Partition — Burden on the claimant — Held further: A plaintiff claiming joint ownership must prove it; documentary dealings by the founder over a century, unchallenged, together with kist receipts, leases and property registers, establish the charity's exclusive title. Appeal suits dismissed. (¶70, 81)
Headnote
You've used your free headnotes this month
The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.
Create my free accountOne judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of A.Roopanandan v. Arulmigu Alavandar Charities — and get the Madras High Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India