SIVATHAL PERIYAVA NADAR Vs. NANA, CHUNA VELMURUGA NADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit brought by six persons, members of the Nadar community of the village of Palayampatti, against six other members, alleging that they have violated the caste rules governing the treatment of caste temple and by their action have interfered with the ordinary practice in connection with the temple and the plaintiffs right. In their suit they allege that there are 200 persons, who were not included in the plaint, who are interested and concerned in the plaint mentioned temple and they ask under Order I, Rule 8, to sue in a representative character. Permission was given and notices were issued, and it appears that a certain number of persons applied to be joined as plaintiffs and others as defendants. The suit went to trial and issues were framed as follows: Issue (2) whether the suit is not cognigable in civil Courts, (3) whether the suit is not properly brought in a representative character, and (4) whether the suit as framed is not maintainable; and there were other issues. The Munsif held that the suit could not properly be brought in a representative character and also that it could not be brought by the plaintiffs personally, and that view has been upheld by the District Judge.

(2.) The appeal has now been argued before us on these two preliminary points. I am of opinion that the view taken by the lower Appellate Court is incorrect.

(3.) It is suggested that Order I, Rule 8, will not cover the case of a person who is a member of a caste and is suing in respect of caste property. Mr. A. Krishnaswami Aiyar put it that caste property is property owned by a body of a quad corporate nature and that, therefore, there cannot be numerous persons having the same interest in one suit because the quasi corporation is the only person that exists and that, therefore, there are not numerous persons. The next point he took was that the plaintiffs having admitted in their plaint that the rights of the caste as a body were to be ascertained by a meeting and decision of the majority, they could not bring a suit unless they had alleged at first that the majority had decided in favour of their view.