AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Venkatadri, J.—This civil revision petition arises out of an order passed on an application in O.S. 355 of 1962 on the file of the District Munsif, Tirumangalam, permitting the President and Treasurer of the respondent (plaintiff) Sangam to sue in a representative capacity on behalf of Gendikottai Reddigal Sangam of Tirupparankundram. Originally,Vela Ramaswami Reddiar and Subbaraman, President and Treasurer, respectively of the Sangam, filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,842,98 from the petitioner herein, on the ground that whatever amount was collected from the members of the Sangam was in the hands of the petitioner, that he did not deposit the same in the Grand Central Pandian Bank, Madurai, as per the directions of the treasurer, that the petitioner was liable to pay the said sum to respondent-Sangam and that, since the petitioner failed and neglected to pay the said sum, the suit was filed. The suit was resisted by the petitioner that he did not owe any amount in any manner to the respondent-Sangam and as such he was not liable to pay any amount to the Sangam. He also filed an additional written statement contending that the suit itself was not maintainable as the same was not filed in a representative capacity and also as the Sangam was an unregistered one. The respondent-Sangam had therefore to file an application under O. 6, R. 17, C.P. Code, to amend the cause title by adding the words, ''as representatives of the plaint Sangam''. This application, out of which the present revision petition arises, was stoutly opposed by the petitioner herein who contended that it was a belated one, that it was not known whether there was community of interest and that the respondent could not be allowed to sue in a representative capacity.
The learned District Munsif allowed the application and permitted the respondent to amend the plaint and to sue in a representative capacity. It is against this order, the defendant has filed the present revision petition.
In this petition, two points arise for determination. The first is whether the learned District Munsif was right in permitting the respondent to amend the cause title of the plaint and to sue in a representative capacity. In regard to this point, Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the procedure laid down in O. 1, R. 8, C.P.C. was not applicable to the present case, as the suit was for recovery of money. I am afraid that this contention may not prevail, in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Kodia Goundar and Another Vs. Velandi Goundar and Others, where the learned Judges had to consider a similar question under O. 1, R. 8, C.P.C., Krishnaswami Nayudu, J., delivering the judgment on behalf of the Bench, observed at page 287:
The nature of the claim whether it is a suit for a declaration of aright or, an injunction or an action for money on contract or on tort�is not very material in considering whether a suit could be filed under the simplified procedure of O. 1, R. 8.
But the Learned Counsel for the petitioner cited the decision in Ratnasami v. Prince of Arcot''s Endowments AIR 1938 Mad. 755 where a Division Bench of this Court have made observations quite contrary to the principle laid down by the Full Bench. The learned Judges observed at page 755 as follows:
Though the point is not covered by Indian authority, the law seems quite clear under the corresponding English rule, that the procedure pertaining to representative suits is inapplicable to actions of debt, to money claims or to liabilities in contract or in tort.
The Full Bench has no doubt referred to this case but they did not express any definite opinion whether they disagreed with that decision. Taking advantage of this fact, Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the decision rendered in Ratnaswami v. Prince of Arcot''s Endowments AIR (1938) Mad. 755, was still good law. But, in Ganga Vishnu v. Nathulal AIR 1957 M.B. 173, the Madhya Bharat High Court referred to the two decisions of this Court as also the decision in (sic) Irumugha Naicker v. Kuppuswami Pillai AIR 1952 Mad. 115=65 L.W. 150, and upheld the decision of the Full Bench of this Court. I am, therefore, of the view that so far as this Court is concerned, the law has been finally settled and established that a representative action for recovery of money claims could be maintained in a civil Court.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner next contended that there was not sufficient community of interest to justify adoption of the procedure provided under O. I R. 8, C.P.C. He contended that the Sangam was an unregistered one and the members of the Sangam were distributed over 24 villages in Madurai and Ramanathapuram Districts. The suit here is for moneys due and payable by the petitioner. The said moneys were collected from the various members of the Sangam for the purpose of renovating the Matam situate in West Car St., Tirupparankundram. This Matam is for the use and benefit of the members of the community. It is well known that Tirupparankundram is a religious place, where a number of marriages are being performed. Evidently, this Matam is being used by the Reddiar community people, whenever they go to Tirupparankundram. In those circumstances, I cannot say that there is not sufficient community of interest among the members of the Sangam. Learned Counsel contended that, as the Sangam was not a registered Society, the suit was not maintainable. But there is sufficient authority that even an unregistered Society by its President can maintain a suit, after obtaining sanction from the Court to sue in a representative capacity. It is enough if I refer to a case on similar facts, Narayanan Nambudiri Vs. Kurichithanam Educational Society, In that case, it was contended that the plaintiff-Society which was an unregistered one was not a juridical person and could not therefore figure as the plaintiff and that since the Society was itself an unregistered body, the individual claiming to be its President could not represent the Society and maintain the suit. The Kerala High Court observed- It is for curing that defect that the said individual has applied for the sanction of the Court under Order I, Rule 8 to institute the suit for and on behalf of the Society. With the issue of such sanction, the defect in the frame of the suit stands remedied.
In Mahamood Nathubhai v. Husen and others 22 Bom. 729 , the plaintiff filed a suit to recover Rs. 368-10-11 from the defendants who were the heirs of one Kassum Gulab who was authorised by an unregistered Society to collect subscriptions for the purpose of constructing a Dehera (temple) over certain dargha. When the heirs refused to hand over the collections to the Panchayat, they filed the suit through the plaintiff. It was contended that such a suit was not maintainable. The learned Judges held that Kassum Gulab held the amount in the capacity of a trustee for the community, for the purpose of expending it upon the dargah and that therefore the suit was maintainable after giving permission to amend the plaint by suing on behalf the community under Sec. 30 of the then C.P.C., Act XIV of 1882, (Order I , Rule 8 of the present Civil Procedure Code). I am, therefore, satisfied that though the suit was filed by an unregistered Sangam, yet the Court has got the jurisdiction to cure the defect by giving them permission to amend the plaint and sue in a representative capacity. The learned District Munsif was also right in making the observation that there was sufficient community of interest to bring the suit under O. I, R. 8, C.P. Code. It is immaterial that the members are distributed in a number of villages. The Sangam truly represents the constitution and composition of its members. The petition is, therefore, maintainable.
The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. But, there will be no order as to costs.