LexCHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD, MADRAS versus T.N. GANAPATHY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD, MADRAS
v.
T.N. GANAPATHY
)...
FEBRUARY 7, 1990
B
[LALIT MOHAN SHARMA AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order I Rule 8 -Suit filed in
representative capacity--Interest to be common or common grievance '
to be redressed-Persons need not have same cause of action.
c
In pursuance of a Housing Scheme the Tamil Nadn Housing
Board, Madras had allotted residential plots over the land acquired
ynder the Land Acquisition Act, to. different groups of applicants
including the low-income group on terms and conditions stipulated in
the lease deed Exh. B-3 sometime in the year 1963. Aller a lapse of more
).
than a decade of the allotment, fresh demands were made from the
D
allottees in 1975. Objecting to the same, the respondent herein tiled a
snit for self and on behalf of all the allottees of low-income group settled
in the Colony named Ashok Nagar, praying for a permanent injunction
restraining the Board from enforcing the demand.
The defendant-Board questioned the very maintainability of the J
E
snit in a representative capacity and also pleaded that it was entitled to
finally determine the correct prices for the plots after taking into
account the final award of the compensation for acquired land and
until then the prices were tentative. The trial court negatived the objec-
lion to the maintainability of the snit but dismissed it on merits. The
first appellate court confirmed the decree. On second appeal, the High
F
Court reversed the finding on merits. The High Court held that it was
open to the Board to determine within a reasonable time what portion of
~
the demand included the excess on account of compensation awarded by
the courts for acquisition of the land and realize the same after serving
fresh demand notices. But since the impugned demand included both
the excess amount of compensation as also the additional developmental
0
charges injunction was granted in regard to the entire demand as the
two amounts were not separately mentioned. Dismissing the appeal of
the Board, this Court,
HELD: The provisions of Order I of Rule 8 have been included in r
the Code in the public interest so as to avoid multiplicity of litigation.
H
Tiie condition necessary for application of the provisions is that the
272
HOUSING BOARD v. T.N. GANAPATHY {SHARMA, J.]
273
persons on whose behalf the suit is being brought must have the same
A
interest. In other words either the interest musi be' common or they
must have a common grievance which they seek to get redressed. [276C-D I
The Court, while considering whether leave under the Rule
should be granted or not, should examine whether there is sntlicient
community of interest to justify the adoption of the procedure provided B
under the Rule. [276E]
Persons who may be represented in a suit under Order I, Rule 8
need not have the same cause of action. [277FJ
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3002 C
of 1983.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.8.1982 of the Madras
High Court in S.A. No. 83of1982.
G. Ramaswamy (N.P.), Mrs. Anjani and K. Ramkumar for the D
Appellant.
P .S. Pgti and K. V. Sreekumar for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SHARMA, J. This appeal by special leave arises out of a suit
filed by the respondent in representative capacity for permanent
injunction against the appellant Tamil Nadu Housing Board from
demanding and collecting from the allottees any additional amount for
settlement of lands with buildings in the colony Ashok Nagar fully
des~ribed in the plaint.
F
2. In pursuance of a Housing Scheme the. appellant-Board pro-
ceeded to settle a large number of residential plots to different groups
of applicants including one described as low-income group. A number
of allottees, including the plaintiff-respondent, were selected and set-
tlement in their favour was made in 1963. J,.. oopy of the document G
executed separately in respect to the plots is on the record of this case
as Exh. B-3, setting out the terms and conditions of the lease. The
term as mentioned in the 15th clause, which is quoted below, has been
referred to by the parties in support of their respective cases:
"15. The Lessor agrees to sell the property more particu-
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
274
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1990) 1 S.C.R.
larly described in the schedule hereunder to the Lessee for
such price as the Administrative Officer of the LessoExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.