LexSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus GUNDUGOLA VENKATA SURYANARAYANA GARU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
4S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 945 special leave. That is why we propose to express no opi- nion on the merits of the plea of mala fides which the appellant wanted to raise before us. The result is, the. appeal is allowed and the order of detention passed against the appellant is set aside on the ground that the service of the order is invalid and is outside the scope of Rule 30( 1) (b) of the. Rules. We accordingly direct that the appellant should be released forthwith. Appeal allowed. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. GUNDUGOLA VENKATA SURYANARAYANA GARU (A. K. SARKAR, J. c. SHAH AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) Civil Procedure Code, S. 80, 0. I. r. 8.-Notice under 80, Civil Procedure Code by two persons but suit filed by one-Validity of suit-Representative suit-Requirements of-Meaning of 'Estate' -Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, S. 3(2)(d)-Madras Estates Rent Reduction Act, 1947. · The Government of Madras applied the provisions of the Madras Estates Rent Reduction Act, 194 7 to the lands in the village Mallinadhapuram on the ground that the grant was of the whole village and hence an estate within the meaning of S. 3(2)(d) pf the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908. The respondent and another person served a notice under S. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure upon the Government of the State of Madras in which they challenged the above mentioned notification and asked the Government not· to act upon it. Out of the two persons who gave the notice, the respondent alone filed the suit. The trial court held that the original grant was not of the entire village 1963 M4han Singh Tarsikka v. The State of Punjab Gajendra- gadkar f. 1963 September 12 afld was not so confirmed or recognised by the Government of the . \ : Province of Madras and therefore as it was not on 11estate" within the meaning of S. 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act the Madras Rent Reduction Act, 1947 did not apply to it. But the Suit was dismissed on the ground that although two persons had given the notice under S. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, only one person had filed the suit. The High Court agreed with the ~al court that the grant was not of an entire- village but it also held that the notice was not defective and the suit was main- tainable as it was a representative suit and the: pemiissiori of the 1963 State of i1trdhra Pradesh v. Gundugola Ven- kata Suryanara- yana Garu Shah, /. SUPREME COURT REPORTS <[i964] Court und~r Order 1, rl 8 had beeri obt:iined· ih this· c3se .. The High Court granted the respondent the relief prayed for by him. Against the order of the High Court, the appellant appealed to this Court. HELD, (i) The suit was not liable to be dismissed. There was in the circumstances of the case no illegality even though notice was given by two persons and the suit was filed by only one. The right to institute a representative suit can be e_xercised by one or more persons having an interest which is common With others and that right can be exercised with the permission of the court. If the court grants permission to one person to institute a representative stiit and if the person had served the notice under S. 80, the circumstances that another person had joined him in serving the notice but did not join him in the suit, is not a sufficient ground for regarding the suit as defective. (ii) The permission of the court has to be obtained for in- stituting a representatiye su,it ~qd not. for serving the notice. The Code of Civil· Procedure Contains no m:lchirieiy- fOf ·granting per- mission to a party seeking to se~ve a notice upon the Governn1ent pr a. p~bl,ic. seryant. , . . . 1 . ,. \, (iii) The lands in dispute did ~ot constiiute. an eState ~~thin the meaniilg"of S. ·3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, and therefore the Madras Rent Reduction Act, 1947 did not apply "to them. Vellavan Che~tiar and othe,.s v . . The Government of the Province of Madras and another, L. R. 74 I. A. 223 and Govern- ment of the Provinc,e of Bo1nbay v. Pestonji Ardeshir Wadia rJnd others, L. R. 76 I. A. 85. · C1VIL APPELLATE 'JuRISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 483 of 1961. . ·Appeal from the judgment and decree dated April l, .1959 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Appeal Suit No. 583 of 1954. K. Bhimashankarani, B.R.G.K. Achar and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant. , September 12, 1963. The Judgment of the court was delivered by SHAH J .-Two questions fall t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.