LexStreak
Read free →
Madras High Court· 27 August 2026

Does a representative suit under Order I Rule 8 CPC require a common interest or common grievance among the persons represented?

A.Roopanandan v. Arulmigu Alavandar Charities
AS.569/1999 · AS No. 569 of 1999
Coram: Justice N. Sathish Kumar · Justice M.Jothiraman
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.7(9) Tamil Nadu Hindu Religiou…📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

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.

Headnote

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 account
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 46It is to be noted that the Court below has not framed any specific issue as to whether the suit in O.S.No.76/1992 is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is seen from Ex.A190 – Extract of the Settlement Register for the year 1877 that there are 13 pattadars names were mentioned namely Manicka Gramani, Jaganatha Gramani, Pachaiyappa Gramani, Muniyappa Gramani, Arunachala Gramani, Govinda Gramani, Veeraswamy Naicker, Arunachala Gramani, Varadappa Naicklen, Muniyappa Gramani, Senkazhuni Nayakkanm, Poruran Chetty and Lakshmana Chetty. Though the plaintiff have stated that there are numerous claimants for the properties, who are the descendants of the original pattadars between 1877 to 1911, as per Ex-A3 – Settlement Register 1877 and Ex.A14 – Resettlement Register 1911, the plaintiffs have not impleaded all the parties with regard to S.No.168 as well as individual sub divisions. In such circumstances, the plaintiff ought to have impleaded all the legal heirs who are representing the pattadars in Ex.A190. Admittedly, they have chosen to implead the Plaintiff Charity alone as one of the defendants. Though the plaintiffs have filed annexures showing genealogy tree, it will not give any credence to their claim. The plaintiffs have not impleaded the actual persons and how the rights devolved to those persons have not been pleaded in the plaint.
Paragraph 48Though the defendants claim that all the persons, who are claiming to be legal heirs of pattadars can be ascertained easily, however the suit is filed without impleading the parties, who are actual pattadars and the defendants have not produced any document to show that they are lineal descendants of the actual pattadars. The representative suit can be filed for a larger number of persons who have a common interest. Under Order 1 Rule 8, it is required that the persons concensus must have common interest or common grievance. The ingredients mandated under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC has not been fulfilled by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.76/1992 for seeking partition. In the absence of proof of legal heirs of the pattadars mentioned in Ex.A190, Ex.A3 and Ex.A14 by mere filing the suit for partition in the absence of common grievance among the legal heirs of pattadars, the Suit is not maintainable. Point No.2 is answered Accordingly. POINT NOS. 3, 4 AND 5
Acts & Sections
s.7(9) Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959Or.1 r.8 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s.4(1) Land Acquisition Act, 1894

One 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 account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Can an Executive Officer sue in the name of a religious institution with the approval of the competent authority?Does the clubbing of subdivisions into a single survey number at a resettlement change the ownership or possession of the parties?Must a plaintiff seeking the relief of partition prove joint ownership of the suit schedule properties?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections