S. N. D. P. SAKHAYOGAM versus KERALA ATMAVIDYA SANGHAM

Citation: [2017] 13 S.C.R. 456 · Decided: 05-09-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 456 
S. N. D. P. SAKHAYOGAM 
v. 
KERALA ATMAVIDYA SANGHAM 
(Civil Appeal No. 7068 of2010) 
SEPTEMBER05,2017 
[R. K. AGR.AWAL AND ABBAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 - 0. 1, r.8 -Application filed 
by plaintiff to prosecute suit in a representative capacity -
Examination of - Respondent No. l (plaintiff) filed a civil suit against 
the appellant (defendant No.l) and defendant No.2 for declaration 
that the sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant 
No. I in respect of suit land be cancelled as being void and bad in 
law - Trial Court framed issues - Thereafter. plaintiff filed an 
application u/O. !, r. 8 and sought permission to prosecute the suit 
as a representative suit - Sanction to prosecute the suit as 
representative suit was granted unopposed - Suit dismissed by the 
trial Court and the First Appellate Court - However. High Court 
allowed the appeal by plaintiff - Supreme Court remanded the case 
to the High Court for deciding the appeal afresh -- High Court 
again allowed the appeal and decreed the plaintiff's suit - On 
appeal. held: Plaintiff applied to the trial Court u/0.1, r.8 of the 
Code to prosecute the suit in representative capacity and permission 
was granted wUhout any objection from the defendants - Trial Court 
should have examined the question as to whether the plaintiff. who 
is a juristic person. i.e .. "Society" is entitled to invoke the provisions 
ofO.I, r.8 of the Code for filing a suit in a "representative capacity"-
Secondly, if the plaintiff is held entitled to file such suit, whether 
the facts pleaded and the relief~ claimed in the plaint can be said to 
be in the nature of representative character so as to satisfy the 
ingredients of OJ, 1:8 of the Code which are meant essentially for 
G the benefit of public at large for gram of any relief - Lastly, if the 
facts pleaded and the relieft claimed in the plaint do not satisfy the 
requirements of O.l. r.8 of the code for grant of relief to the public 
at large then whether such suit is capable of being tried as a regular 
suit on behalf of the plaintiff for granting reliefs in their personal 
H 
capacity because the suit relates to ownership of land, namely. who 
is the owner of the suit land - However, there was neither any 
456 
S. N. D. P. SAKHAYOGAM v. KERALAATMAVIDYA 
457 
SANGHAM 
discussion much less finding on any of the aforesaid issues by any 
A 
of the courts below though these questions direct(v and substantial(v 
arose in the case - Therefore, in the interest a/justice. matter 
remanded to trial Court to answer these issues and then decide the 
suit depending upon the answe1· in accordance with law -
Jurisdiction. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. In the instant cas.e, one question, which goes to 
the root of the case affecting the very jurisdiction of the Court to 
try the suit, was not taken note and if taken note of, it was not 
decided in its proper perspective by any of the Courts below. 
May be due to the reason, instead of raising the objection, the 
defendant appears to have conceded it. Be that as it may, the 
issue of jurisdiction which goes to the root of the case, if found 
involved has to be tried at any stage of the proceedings once 
brought to the notice of the Court. [Paras 17, 18)(461-D-E] 
2. The plaintiff had sought permission before the trial court 
to prosecute the suit hy taking recourse to the provisions of Order 
1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In other words, 
the plaintiff treated their suit to be in the nature of a 
"representative suit" within the meaning of Order 1 Rule 8 and, 
therefore, applied to the Trial Court under Rule 8 of the Code 
seeking permission to prosecute the suit in the representative 
capacity. This permission appears to have been granted to the 
plaintiff by the Trial Court without any objection from the side of 
the defendants. [Para 19] (461-D-G] 
3.1 
While deciding issue regarding the 'suit in a 
representative capacity', the Trial Court was expected to decide 
several material questions, namely, whether the plaintiff, who is 
a juristic person, i.e., "Society" is entitled to invoke the provisions 
of Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code for filing a suit in a "representative 
capacity". In other words, the Trial Court should have examined 
the question as to whether the expression "person" occurring in 
Rule 8 also includes "juristic person". [Para 21] [462-A-B] 
3.2 Secondly, if th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.