1954 (9) TMI 33 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Executability of a decree obtained in a representative suit against persons not co-nomine parties to the decree.
2. Whether a representative action can lie in respect of a claim for damages.

Issue 1: Executability of a Decree Obtained in a Representative Suit Against Persons Not Co-Nomine Parties to the Decree

The primary issue for consideration was whether a decree obtained in a representative suit under Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C. could be enforced against individuals who were not explicitly named as parties to the decree. The court examined the conditions necessary for bringing a representative suit and the binding nature of such a decree on the class of persons represented.

The court emphasized that for a decree in a representative suit to be binding, the procedure laid down in Order 1, Rule 8 must be strictly followed. This ensures that the decree is binding as 'res judicata' on all members of the class represented. However, the court clarified that while the decree may be binding in terms of res judicata, it does not automatically make the decree enforceable against individuals who were not named as parties in the suit.

The court referred to Section 47, C.P.C., which deals with questions arising between parties to the suit or their representatives relating to the execution of the decree. The court held that individuals who were not explicitly named as parties could not be considered parties to the suit, even if they were represented by others. Consequently, any question arising between a party to the suit and persons who are not parties cannot be determined solely through execution proceedings and may require a separate suit.

The court cited previous judgments, including Sadagopachari v. Krishnamachari (12 Mad 358), which held that a decree could not be executed against individuals not named in the writ of injunction. The principle was further supported by subsequent decisions in Srinivasa Aiyangar v. Arayar Srinivasa Aiyangar (33 Mad 483) and Sahib Thambi v. Hamid (36 Mad 414), which reiterated that an injunction is personal and binds only the parties named in the decree.

The court acknowledged a contrary view in Waryam Singha v. Sher Sing (AIR 1942 Lah 136), where a decree for injunction obtained in a representative suit was held executable against represented defendants. However, the court found this view unconvincing, emphasizing the need for individuals to have an opportunity to raise defenses and contest the decree.

In conclusion, the court held that a decree for injunction could not be enforced against individuals who were not named as parties in the suit, even if they were represented. The decree must be revived against such individuals through a separate suit to afford them an opportunity to contest the decree.

Issue 2: Whether a Representative Action Can Lie in Respect of a Claim for Damages

The second issue was whether a representative suit under Order 1, Rule 8 could be instituted for the recovery of damages. The court examined the conditions necessary for the maintainability of a representative suit, emphasizing the requirement of common interest among the persons represented.

The court referred to previous decisions, including Katha Pillai v. Kanakasundaram Pillai (AIR 1919 Mad 1143) and Narayana Mudali v. Peria Kalathi (AIR 1939 Mad 783), which addressed the issue of representative suits for damages. In Katha Pillai, the court allowed a representative suit for damages combined with other reliefs, while in Narayana Mudali, the court held that a representative suit for damages in tort was not maintainable.

The court also considered Ratnaswami Nadar v. Prince of Arcot's Endowments (AIR 1938 Mad 755), where a representative suit for possession and mesne profits was partially upheld. The court observed that the principal requirement for a representative suit is the sameness of interest among the persons represented, and this requirement must be satisfied regardless of the nature of the claim.

The court distinguished between cases where the defendants were sued in a representative capacity and those where the plaintiffs sought to represent a class. The court emphasized that the nature of the claim, whether for declaration, injunction, or damages, is not material as long as there is sufficient community of interest among the persons represented.

The court concluded that a representative suit for damages is maintainable under Order 1, Rule 8, provided there is sufficient community of interest among the persons represented. The fact that the suit is for damages does not exclude it from the scope of the provision.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed L.P.A. No. 69 of 1950 and C.R.P. No. 417 of 1948, holding that decrees for injunction in representative suits are neither executable nor enforceable against individuals not named as parties. However, the court allowed S.A. No. 1838 of 1950, holding that a representative suit for damages is maintainable under Order 1, Rule 8, provided there is sufficient community of interest among the persons represented.