Udaya Goundan Palayam Village Hindus vs Udaya Goundan Palayam Village Christian Harijans

T.S. Sivagnanam, J.—Heard Mr. G. Karthikeyan, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. M. Narayanasamy for the Respondents.

Since both the Civil Revision Petitions have been filed challenging the orders passed in I.A. Nos. 567 and 568 of 2004 in O.S. No. 379 of 2004 on the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam, they were heard together and disposed of by a common order.

The Petitioners in both these Revisions are the Defendants in O.S. No. 379 of 2004. The Respondents/Plaintiffs have filed the Suit for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with the Suit property. The Respondents/Plaintiffs has been described as Udaya Gounden Palayam Village Christina Harijans, represented by Joseph and Divyanathan. The Petitioners/Defendants have been shown as Udaya Goundan Palayam Village Hindus, represented by Jayaraj, Raju, Rasmasamy @ Thamasraj and Sivan @ Arulsamy.

The Plaintiffs filed two Interlocutory Applications in I.A. Nos. 567 of 2004 & 568 under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code. In I.A. No. 567 of 2004, prayer was made to permit the Plaintiffs to file the Suit in the representative capacity. In I.A. No. 568 of 2004, the Plaintiffs sought permission to permit the Plaintiffs to sue the Defendants in a representative capacity.

The Petitioners/Defendants filed Counter Statement in both these Applications.

The main legal contention which has been raised by the Petitioners before the Trial Court is that there is no caste as Christian Harijans and therefore, the Plaintiffs cannot maintain the Suit stating that they are Christian Harijans of the particular village. The Trial Court without going into the legal averment rejected the objection raised by the Petitioners and allowed the Applications by observing that the contention raised by the Petitioners/Defendants is a question of fact and that could be decided only at the time of trial.

In the Application in I.A. No. 568 of 2004 where permission was sought for the sue the Defendants in the representative capacity the Trial Court found that three of the persons shown as Defendants belong to Christian community and accordingly the relief to sue the Defendants 1, 3 & 4 in the representative capacity was rejected. Challenging these two orders, these two Revision Petitions have been filed.

The provisions under Order 1, Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code allows one or more of such persons to sue or be sued, or may defend such Suit, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all persons so interested i.e. the persons on whose behalf the Suit is filed must have same interest. Further, the interest must been common or they must have common grievance which they seek to get redressed. The object for which this provision is enacted is really to facilitate the decisions of questions, in which a large number of persons are interested. Without recourse to the ordinary procedure. The provision must, therefore, receive an interpretation which will sub serve the object for which it is enacted. Further, it is settled legal position that the persons who may be represented in a Suit under Order 1, Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code need not have the same cause of action. In the instant case, the Trial Court did not consider the scope of the Application under Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C. bearing in mind the principles laid down by the Supreme Court that the persons on whose behalf the Suit is filed need not have same cause of action. Furthermore, the Petitioners have raised legal issue before the Court stating that Hindu Members of scheduled caste converted into Christianity are excluded from the benefits conferred by the Government on other members of Scheduled Caste having same profession or occupation.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners placed reliance on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Soosai v. Union of India 1985 (Supp) SCC 590. The question which arose for consideration in the said decision is whether the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, is constitutionally invalid on the ground that only Hindu or Sikh members of the castes enumerated in the Schedule to that Order are deemed to the Scheduled Castes for the purposes of the Constitution or India. The petitioner before the Hon''ble Supreme Court pointed out that Adi-Dravida is one of the castes enumerated in the Schedule to Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 and he has been denied the benefit of welfare assistance intended for Scheduled Castes on the ground only the he professes the Christian religion and he invoked Article 14, 15 & 25 of the Constitution of India before the Hon''ble Supreme Court stating that he cannot be denied welfare assistance intended for Scheduled Castes on the ground that he professes Christianity. While deciding the said question, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

"5. The expression "Scheduled Castes" is defined in Clause 24 of Article 366 to mean "such castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within such castes, races or tribes as are deemed under Article 341 to be Scheduled Castes for the purposes of this Constitution". Clause (1) of Article 341 enjoins upon the President to specify by public notification the castes, races or tribes or parts of or group within castes, races or tribes, which for the purposes of the Constitution are deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to a state of Union Territory. Once such Notification is issued by the Present it cannot be varied by any subsequent Notification is issued by the Present it cannot be varied by any subsequent Notification except that, by virtue of clause (2) of Article 341, Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes specified in the Notification issued under clause (1) any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within any caste, race or tribe. In discharge of the obligation imposed by clause (1) of Article 341 the president issued the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. In its original form, Paragraph 3 declared that "...no person who professes a religion different from Hinduism'' would be deemed to be a member of the Scheduled Caste. There was a Proviso to Paragraph 3 which declared that every member of the Ramdasi, Kabirpanthi, Mazhabi or Sikligar caste resident in Punjab or the Patiala and East Punjab States Union would in relation to that State be deemed to be a member of the Scheduled Castes whether he professed the Hindu religion or the Sikh religion. Subsequently, Parliament enacted the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1956 which substituted for the original Paragraph 3 the present paragraph, which declares:

Notwithstanding anything contained in Paragraph 2, no person who professor a religion different from the Hindu or the Sikh religion shall be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste.

It is apparent that for the purposes of the Constitution the Constitutional provisions relating to Scheduled Castes are intended to be applied to only those members of the castes enumerated in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 who profess the Hindu or Sikh religion. Clearly, if it can be contemplated that a Christian belongs to one of those castes, he is barred by reason of paragraph 3, from being regarded as a member of the Scheduled Castes and is, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of the constitutional provisions relating to Scheduled Castes."

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners has also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in C.M. Arumugam v. S. Rajagopal, 1976 (1) SCC 863, and the decision in Palghat Jilla Thandan Samudhaya v. State of Kerala, 1994 (1) SCC 359.

Therefore, the question in the present case would be whether the Respondents/Plaintiffs would be entitled to maintain the Suit in a representative capacity by giving their name, as members of Udaya Goundan Palayam Village Christian Harijans and sue the Defendants as Udaya Goundan Palayam Village Hindus. Therefore, the Court ought to have taken the decision as to whether the Plaintiffs could sue in a representative capacity by invoking Order 1, Rule 8 of C.P.C. Whether the Defendants in the Suit could be sued in such manner as described. Furthermore, the Court ought to have taken a decision in this matter bearing in mind the purpose of Order 1, Rule 8 of C.P.C. In the absence of consideration of all these aspects, in the impugned orders, this Court of the view that the impugned orders call for interference and accordingly the impugned orders are set aside and these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. The matters are remanded to the Trial Court to decide the Applications filed under Order 1, Rule 8 of Civil Procedure code bearing in mind the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Chairman Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras v. T.N. Ganapathy, AIR 1990 SC 642, and the objective of Order 1 and Rule 8 of C.P.C. and also to take note that the persons who may be represented in the Suit under Order 1, Rule 8 of C.P.C. need not have the same cause of action. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.