M.ANTONY SAMY SURESH Vs. S.JOSEPH RAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present respondents are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 407 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli. There are four respondents and the first respondent is the power agent of 2 to 4 respondents who are plaintiffs in the suit. The revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The suit was filed by the power of attorney, the first plaintiff, for declaration that the sale deed dated 25.02.2010 is null and void and for consequential injunction. Pending trial of the suit, the first respondent filed an application under Order 1, Rule 8 r/w Section 151 CPC praying the Court to permit him to sue in representative capacity of all the purchasers of the properties who have purchased from him (first plaintiff) which originally belonged to Lakshmi Ammal from whom he (first plaintiff) got power of attorney for selling the lands. In the affidavit, it is stated by the first plaintiff that on 16.07.1996 he got power of attorney from the owners of the properties and sold plots to 2 to 4 plaintiffs and others. He has sold the lands in plots more than 80%, for whom he is supervising the properties since the defendant disturbed the properties belonging to 2 to 4 plaintiffs. At present, the defendant is likely to disturb the other purchasers also others who have purchased the lands from the first plaintiff and hence, all the purchasers have got common interest in the suit lands. Hence, on behalf of all the purchasers, the first plaintiff may be permitted to proceed the case in a representative capacity.

(2.) The defendant has alleged in the counter that it is impermissible to permit the first plaintiff to represent all the purchasers and he has no locus standi to file the application. Merely because he sold the properties to other purchasers and he is supervising their properties, it cannot be stated that he can represent all the purchasers. In the plaint, the cause of action goes to show that the defendant disturbed the possession of 2 to 4 plaintiffs in their properties in Plot No. 39, 31, and 127 on 12.11.2010 and hence, there could be no cause of action for the first plaintiff to represent the other purchasers. The purchasers have no common interest. Hence, the petition may be dismissed.

(3.) After hearing both parties, the learned Principal Sub Judge, Tirunelveli has allowed the application under observation that disallowing of the application may lead to multiplicity of proceedings and in the interest of justice the first plaintiff has to be permitted to represent all the purchasers. Hence, the defendant is before this Court with this revision.