RATHA PILLAI Vs. KANAKA SUNDRIAM PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order before us is one granting leave to plaintiff to sue as representing those of his fellow Mirasidars, who have not opposed his application, and il was passed under Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The proposed suit is brought by plaintiff as a leading Mirasidar and as trustee in management of certain forest land on behalf of the other Mirasidars, alleging that defendants, some of the Mirasidars, have trespassed on it and removed a quantity of forest produce. The reliefs claimed are declarations, an injunction, damages measur ed by the value of the produce removed and, if necessary, a scheme for future management.

(3.) The main objections to the lower Court s order are that Order I, Rule 8, deals only with representative suits, and that (1) as the plaint refers to the forest as the common property of the Mirasidars, their interest in it should be protected by a suit framed in accordance with Order I, Rule 1, with all the individuals concerned as parties, not by a representative suit under Order I, Rule 8, and (2) that a representative suit cannot be brought for damages. Both these contentions have been supported by reference to Markt v. Knight Steamships Co. (1910) 2 K.B. 1021 : 79 : L.J.K.B. 939 : 103 L.T. 869 in which one of several shippers sued, as representing all, for compensation for the losses, which each of the shippers had incurred by the loss of the ship. But the main relief claimed in the present case resembles rather that in question in Duke of Bedford v. Ellis (1901) A.C. I : 70 L.J. Ch. 102 : 83 L.T. 686 : 17 T.L.R. 139 a declaration regarding the rights of the six plaintiffs and other interested persons, whom they were allowed to represent under the English Order XVI, Rule 9, corresponding with Order I, Rule 8 in the Indian Code; and following the latter case we hold that as regards the reliefs claimed other than damages, the suit is properly constituted.