KUMARAVELU CHETTIAR Vs. T P RAMASWAMI AYYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At Tiruchendur in the Tinnevelly District, there is a temple dedicated to Subrahmanyaswami described by the appellants as a public temple of classic fame and great antiquity, open to and attended by all non- Panchama non-polluting Hindus from all parts of India, of all sects, including the appellants' "community of the Vaniya Vaisyas."In the suit, out of which this appeal arises, the appellants "for themselves and as representatives of all members of Tiruchendur Vaniya Vaisyas"set up a right to worship in the Inner Mayil Mahamantapam of the temple. The defendants were the trustees of the temple, certain sthanikars and servants under the control of the trustees and three members of the Vellala community of Tiruchendur. They were sued "for themselves, and as representative of all persons similarly interested in the subject matter of the suit."The suit was filed under 0. 1, R. 8, Civil P. C.a rule to which full reference must later be made, and the claim of the plaintiffs was resisted by all the defendants on grounds set forth in detail in the written statement of the trustees. These comprised answers on the merits, with a separate defence of res judicata. The claim was barred, so it was alleged by a decree pronounced in 1878 in a suit representative in character and seeking the same relief.

(2.) This defence, along with all the other answers made by the written statement, was repelled by the learned Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin, who, on 17 March 1923, after a very elaborate judgment dealing with all the issues raised decreed the suit. The respondents appealed to the High Court at Madras. In that Court the learned Judges found it convenient to deal with the plea of res judicata as one preliminary to all the others, and after full argument they came to the conclusion that it had been established. As however the course of decisions throughout India had not been uniform on the point at issue, they thought it well to refer the question of res judicata to the Full Court for decision..There, the same view was taken of the plea, and with an intimation to that effect the case was remitted to the learned Judges by whom the appeal had so far been heard, to pronounce upon the question whether the former suit had in fact, in its trial, been treated as a representative suit for the benefit of all Vaniyas so as to be fit to be decisive of the present case. . This decision is printed as AIR 1928 Mad. 77 (FB)Ed.

(3.) This question having later been answered in the affirmative by the learned Judges, it became unnecessary for them to go into any of the other issues raised on the appeal, which accordingly, by decree of 16th November 1927, was allowed and the suit dismissed. Hence the plaintiffs' present appeal to His Majesty in Council, upon which, it is agreed, that the only questions in hoc statu open for determination are the two which have by the High Court been decided in favour of the respondents. Whether the litigation is to proceed further or not will become clear after it has been ascertained whether the views of the High Court on these two questions are or are not well founded. It will appear as the case develops, that the decision must finally be rested on a proper appreciation of the provisions of the Civil P. C. with reference to representative suits, due regard being had to the conditions, if any such there be, which must be observed, if a decree in such a suit is to be binding on persons not actually parties or privies thereto. It will accordingly be convenient at the outset to trace the legislative history of representative suits.