Kumaresan and Others vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others

P.R. Shivakumar, J—This matter stands listed today, after several adjournments for admission. The arguments advanced by Mr. S. Rajasekar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. S.C. Herold Singh, learned counsel for the Respondents 3 and 4 are heard. Copies of the judgements of the Courts below and other records received from the Courts below are also taken into consideration.

The Plaintiffs in the original suit in O.S. No. 712 of 2004 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil are the appellants in the present Second Appeal. They filed the suit against the respondents and one Y. Issac Raj (deceased) for the following reliefs:

"1. permanent injunction restraining the defendants in the said suit from using the name ''Thoppur'' or any name other than ''Melasankarankuzhi'' and from exhibiting any board, placards or poster using the names of Thoppur instead of Melasankarankuzhi;

for mandatory injunction directing the defendants in the suit to remove the board, placards or any writing exhibiting the name Thoppur; and

for costs."

The suit was resisted by the defendants contending that the particular place was known as ''Thoppur'' for several years and that regarding the nomenclature of a particular place or change of name of a particular place with the permission of the Revenue Department and in the absence of any resolution to the contrary by the Local Body followed by a specific order by the Government, use of such name could not be challenged. It was also contended that the appellants/plaintiffs, being two individuals, could not maintain such a suit as Public Interest Litigation.

The learned Trial Judge after trial, held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the relief sought for and accordingly dismissed the suit by judgement and decree, dated 18.07.2007. After unsuccessfully prosecuting the appeal before the Lower Appellate Court, namely the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil in A.S. No. 124 of 2007, which came to be dismissed on 15.07.2009, the appellants herein/Plaintiffs have approached this Court with the present Second Appeal.

Upon hearing the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and after perusing the records, this Court is of the considered view that the Second Appeal can be disposed of on a short question of maintainability of such a suit. Two individuals of Melasankarankuzhi village have chosen to file the suit praying that any part of the said village should not be given the name of ''Thoppur''. When the village or any part carved out from the village is said to be given a specific name, individuals cannot question such act on the part of the Revenue Department. Even if the residents of a particular area want to give a specific name to their area and seek the approval of such naming and incorporation of such name in the revenue records, individuals cannot question it and challenge the same before the Civil Court. If at all they want to represent the Public of the said village in general to oppose any such moved, they could have very well move the local body for passing a resolution either in favour or against the change of name of the village or assigning of name for a particular area. Based on such resolution, the Government can pass necessary orders which shall be published in the District Gazette.

It is not the case of the appellants/Plaintiffs that the name of the entire village is sought to be changed from Melasankarankuzhi into Thoppur. Admittedly, a particular portion in that village alone has been named as ''Thoppur'' and such a name was in vogue for nearly thirty years. If the resident of a particular area or ward give an area a name, of an individual or a leader/prominent person of a particular community/religion, the same may be questioned by the individuals like the appellants herein/Plaintiffs. In case of assignment of a common name that does not refer to any race, caste or religion, they have to approach competent authorities for necessary orders. Inspite of doing it, the appellants herein/plaintiffs have chosen to file a civil suit in the Civil Court for injunction not to use the name "Thoppur" or any name other than "Melasankarankuzhi". The individuals like the appellants do not have the locus standi to maintain such a suit. Though paragraph 2 of the plaint recites that the suit is one filed as a public interest suit under Order I Rule VIII Civil Procedure Code, the cause-title does not indicate that the suit has been filed by the appellants herein representing the village public.

In fact, the Town Panchayat of "Melasankarankuzhi" itself, represented by its President, has been made a party-defendant and arrayed as the second defendant. When there is an elected body to the local authority and such local authority is represented by a President who figures as a defendant, it shall tantamount to the villagers being represented by their elected representative. The second respondent/second defendant also resisted the suit contending that the appellants herein/plaintiffs do not have the locus standi and that therefore the suit should be dismissed. Though the Courts below did not advert to the above said aspect and on the other hand chose to embark upon a discussion on the factual issue as to whether there was any area known as "Thoppur", this Court is of the considered view that such an exercise was unnecessary and the suit itself could have been disposed of on the question of maintainability of the suit.

As pointed out supra, two individuals alone have chosen to file the suit for the retention of the name of a particular place or for removal of the name of a particular place forming part of an area comprised within the Town Panchayat Limits of Melasankarankuzhi. In view of the fact that the second respondent/second defendant Town Panchayat has opposed the claim of the appellants herein/plaintiffs for the change of the name of the particular area within the limits of Melasankarankuzhi, the appellants/plaintiffs shall be regarded as the persons who do not have the locus standi to espouse the cause of the villagers, that too, without showing in the cause-title that the appellants/Plaintiffs are filing the suit representing the village public. The other private defendants are also members of the public of the said place and at least, they have come forward with a plea that the plaintiffs cannot bat for the villagers. Besides such private parties, the local authority has also come forward with a similar plea. Under such circumstances, even if it is assumed that the appellants purported to file a suit in a representative capacity, their right to represent the villagers should have been decided before entertaining the suit filed by them. If all these aspects are taken into consideration, the only conclusion to which this Court can come shall be that the appellants/plaintiffs do not have the locus standi or cause of action for themselves to file a suit and the suit should have been dismissed on the question of maintainability itself. Hence this Court comes to the conclusion that the Second Appeal deserves to be dismissed on that score alone.

In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.