SINGHAI LAL CHAND JAIN (DEAD) versus RASHTRIYA SWAYAM SEWAK SANGH, PANNA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 739 · Decided: 15-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
SINGHAI LAL CHAND JAIN (DEAD) 
A 
v. 
RASHTRIYA SWAYAM SEWAK SANGH, PANNA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 15, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : 
Section 11/0rder 1 Rule 8-Representative suit-Objection as to main-
tainability of-Held: Sangh duly represented in the previous proceedings and C 
litigation conducted bonafide on behalf of the Sangh-But was unsuccess-
Juf-Hence no one on behalf of the Sangh can lay any objection in the 
execution nor plead nullity of the decree-Doctrine of Res judicata prohibited 
the members of the Sangh to obstruct the execution of the decre~Every 
member of the Sangh is bound by the decree of ejectment-Sangh to deliver 
vacant possession within six month~n default, appellant entitled to have D 
the decree executed throilgh the assis~ance of police. 
Surayya Begum (Mst.) v. Mohd. Usman & Ors., (1991] 3 SCC 114 and 
Talluri Venkata Seshayya and Ors. v. Thadikonda Kotiswara Rao & Ors., AIR 
(1937) PC 1 relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3796 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment ap.d Order dated 16.7.91 of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court in C.R. No. 476 of 1988. 
Shiv Dayal Srivastava, and S.K. Bagga, Ms. Tanuj Bagga, Ms. S. 
Bagga, and Seeraj Bagga for the Appellants. 
Ms. Sheela Goel and AK. Goel for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
Heard learned counsel on both sides. 
E 
F 
G 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order H 
739 
740 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
dated July 16, 1991 made in C.R. No. 476/88 of the Madhya Pradesh High 
Court, Jabalpur Bench. The Division Bench held that the objection to the 
maintainability of representative suit without leave of the Court under 
Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Code) is sustainable. 
The decree of the Court is in nullity and non est. Therefore, Explanation 
B VI to Section 11 is not attracted to the facts in this case. Accordingly, the 
execution is not maintainable. Calling in question the finding and decision 
of the High Court, this appeal by special leave has been filed. 
The facts are fairly not in dispute. The appellant laid Civil Suit No. 
W87 in the court of District Judge, Panna in Madhya Pradesh for eviction 
C of Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh through its Manager, Shri Gorelal Soni, 
its President, Shri Shiv Behari Srivastava, Advocate and the Head Master 
of Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Panna by name Ram Kripal Chaubey, as·a 
member of the Sangh. The claim was based on the title and for eviction of 
the Sangh and its office bearers on the premise' that it had no authority to 
D stay in the suit premises. It was the appellant's plea that they had requested 
for temporary occupation of the premises till alternative site was secured. 
He had permitted the Sangh to occupy the premises for office purposes. 
But later the respondents had not vacated the premises. Then defence 
taken by the Sangh through its Manager, the President and the Member in 
joint written statement was that the property belonged to the Raja of Panna 
E 
who at a meeting had declared that the Sangh was entitled to occupy the 
premises and remain in possession for all times. Pursuant to that, they had 
come into the premises and, therefore, they are entitled to remain in 
possession. Appropriate issues were framed and after adduction of 
evidence and consideration thereof, the trial Court upheld the plea of the 
F 
respondents and dismissed the suit. In F.A. No. 70/81, the High Court by 
an order and judgment dated October 31, 1986 allowed the appeal and 
decreed the suit for ejectment. All the three filed S.L.P. (C) No. 2751/87 
in this Court and by order dated July 15, 1987 Bench of three Judges of 
this Court refused leave and dismissed the petition. The appeal was argued 
G . by no less than Shri U .R. Lalit, one of the eminent senior counsel of this 
Bar. After the execution was laid, Gorelal Soni and the respondents had 
filed objections contending that Sangh was not a registered body but 
composed of several members. The appellant had not followed Order 1 
Rule 8, procedure. Therefore, the decree was a nullity and Section 11 is 
not a bar. The executing Court had upheld the objection and dismissed the 
H petition. On revision. The High Court confirmed the same. 
.. 
-
S.L.C. JAIN v. R.S.S. SANGH 
741 
Shri Shiv Dayal Srivastava, learned senior counsel appearing for the A 
appellant has contended that in view
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.