ABDUL GHANI SAHIB Vs. NPRMVRMSUBRAMANIA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed by the plaintiffs in suit No. 165 of 1926 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Koilpatti against an order passed by the learned District Munsif by which he declined to grant leave to the petitioners, plaintiffs, to institute the suit on behalf of the village community concerned under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P.C. The brother of defendant 1 claimed title to certain properties under purchase from the alleged original defendant 2 as manager of the endowment and got a decree in his favour.

(2.) In the present plaint, the plaintiffs, three Mahomedans of the locality alleged that the decree in the prior suit was not binding upon the trust, and the plaintiffs prayed to have the appropriate reliefs granted to them in respect of the matters. At the time of filing the plaint, the plaintiffs also put in an application under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P.C., for permission to be allowed to sue on behalf of the village community interested in the matter. Defendants 1 and 5 (Chetties) are the main contesting defendants. They opposed the application. The learned District Munsif has upheld the objection of defendants 1 and 5 and he has dismissed the application filed under Order 1, Rule 8, by the plaintiffs.

(3.) The main arguments mentioned in the order of the lower Court may be noticed. The first argument is that the plaintiffs have not proved that the community concerned has got confidence in the plaintiffs. In fact, the defendants contend that the community concerned has no confidence in the plaintiffs and that accordingly the plaintiffs are not entitled to be granted the permission prayed for. In answer to this, I may say that Order 1, Rule 8 has been enacted for the benefit of the defendants only to this extent, namely, to prevent multiplicity of suits against them. The question whether the community concerned has got confidence in the plaintiffs as regards the proper conduct of the suit or not is not a matter with which the contesting defendants 1 and 5, members of a totally different community, are concerned and it is not a point for them to take. The law has provided sufficient safeguards in case the community concerned resolve to conduct the suit in any other manner, such as by taking the conduct of the suit from out of the hands of the plaintiffs or otherwise. I may in this connexion refer to the decision of the Privy Council in the Kamudi case, Sankara Linga Nadan v. Rajeswara Dorai [1908] 31 Mad. 236. There, a suit was instituted under Section 30 of the old Civil P.C., which corresponds to Order 1, R.8, of the present Code. After the first Court granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff on record thought it proper to compromise with the contesting defendants. Then the cestui que trust and other persons who were also interested in the institution and consequently in the proper conduct of the suit, wanted to be allowed to be made themselves parties and also to have the further conduct of the litigation taken out of the hands of the original plaintiff, who, by compromising with the defendants after obtaining a decree showed himself to be no longer worthy of the confidence of the community concerned. The Privy Council at p. 250, [31 Mad.] make this observation: After the case had been decided in his favour by the Subordinate Judge, this person (the original plaintiff) thought fit to profess that her now saw that he and the Judge were wrong and he asked that the judgment should be altered so as to defeat his own action. A very sordid motive for his surrender was specifically asserted and has not been disproved. The Court on being applied to, very properly reinforced the causa of the worshippers of the temple by joining certain new plaintiffs to the original plaintiff and allowed the new persons to further conduct the litigation. The decision of the High Court on an application filed by such new people to be made parties and the reasons which generally guide the Court in granting such applications will be found referred to in Narayanaswamy Gurukkal Etal V/s. Irulappa . Under the Code under Order 1, Rule 11 the Court may give the conduct of the suit to such persons as it deems proper, and the Court also could add as parties any persons who wish to be on the record eo nomine if proper grounds were made out for that course being taken. For the above reasons, I am of opinion that the learned District Munsif was not right in the first reason that he gave for not allowing permission asked for in this particular case.