Supreme Court clarifies the applicability of Order 1 Rule 8 CPC to Societies in property disputes: S.N.D.P. Sakhayogam vs. Kerala Atmavidya Sangham (2017)

Can a Society file a representative suit under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding ownership of land? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case between S.N.D.P. Sakhayogam and Kerala Atmavidya Sangham. This case revolves around a property dispute and whether a society can represent a larger group in such matters. The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated September 5, 2017, set aside the previous judgments and remanded the case back to the Trial Court. The bench comprised Justices R.K. Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre.

Case Background

The dispute involves land in Thrikkunnapuzha village, Alappuzha district, Kerala. The Kerala Atmavidya Sangham (plaintiff), a registered society, claimed to have purchased the land in 1951. They intended to use it for charitable activities through a branch, “Panoor 47 Atma Vidya Sabha” (defendant no. 1). The plaintiff alleged that the land was purchased in the name of the defendant no. 1, with defendant no. 2 as its President.

The plaintiff contended that defendant no. 1 stopped its activities. As per their bye-laws, all properties of the branch should merge with the parent body, the plaintiff. However, defendant no. 2, allegedly the President of defendant no. 1, sold the land to defendant no. 1 through a sale deed dated 09.02.1978. The plaintiff argued that this sale was illegal. They sought a declaration to cancel the sale deed.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 21.08.1980. The first Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal on 02.09.1986. However, the High Court allowed the second appeal on 29.05.1995, decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff.

Defendant No. 1 then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, on 30.10.2003, set aside the High Court’s order and remanded the case. The remand was on the ground that the High Court had not framed any substantial questions of law. After remand, the High Court again allowed the appeal on 27.01.2005. This led to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily concerns Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This provision allows one or more persons to sue or be sued on behalf of many who have the same interest in a suit. The core question is whether a “Society,” a juristic person, can invoke this provision.

The Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Act 12/1955 is also relevant. The plaintiff is registered under this Act.

Arguments

The plaintiff argued that the sale deed was invalid. They claimed that defendant no. 1 was their branch. The suit land, therefore, belonged to them. The plaintiff also contended that defendant no. 2 had no authority to sell the land.

Defendant no. 1 argued that they were an independent organization. They claimed that the sale deed was valid. They denied any connection with the plaintiff.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court identified the following key issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff, a juristic person (Society), can invoke Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to file a suit in a representative capacity.
2. If the plaintiff can file such a suit, whether the facts and reliefs claimed satisfy the requirements of Order 1 Rule 8.
3. If the requirements of Order 1 Rule 8 are not met, can the suit be tried as a regular suit on behalf of the plaintiff in their personal capacity.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly cite any authorities. However, it discusses the interpretation of Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Judgment

The Supreme Court did not delve into the merits of the case. It focused on the procedural aspect of whether the suit was maintainable as a representative suit under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The Court observed that the Trial Court did not consider whether a “Society” (a juristic person) can file a suit in a representative capacity. The Court also noted the lack of discussion on whether the facts and reliefs claimed satisfy the requirements of Order 1 Rule 8.

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court, the first Appellate Court, and the Trial Court. The case was remanded to the Trial Court for a fresh decision. The Trial Court was directed to decide the issues of maintainability of the suit under Order 1 Rule 8, and then decide the suit on its merits.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s primary concern was the lack of proper consideration of the procedural aspect of the suit. The Court emphasized that the issue of jurisdiction, specifically the applicability of Order 1 Rule 8, was not adequately addressed by the lower courts. The Court’s focus was on ensuring that the Trial Court first determines if the suit is maintainable as a representative suit before proceeding to the merits of the case.

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal interpretation of Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and its applicability to a juristic person like a society.

Logical Reasoning

The Supreme Court did not decide the merits of the case. It focused on the procedural issue of whether the suit was maintainable under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court emphasized that the Trial Court should first determine if the plaintiff, a society, can file a representative suit before addressing the merits of the case.

The Court stated, “In our considered opinion, one question, which goes to the root of the case affecting the very jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit, was not taken note and if taken note of, it was not decided in its proper perspective by any of the Courts below.”

The Court further noted, “In our considered opinion, while deciding Issue No. 1, the Trial Court was expected to decide several material questions, namely, whether the plaintiff, who is a juristic person, i.e., “Society” is entitled to invoke the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code for filing a suit in a “representative capacity“.”

The Court also observed, “Since there was neither any discussion much less finding on any of the aforesaid issues by any of the Courts below though these questions directly and substantially arose in the case (Issue No. 1), we are of the considered opinion that it would be just and proper and in the interest of justice to remand the case to the Trial Court to answer these issues and then decide the suit depending upon the answer in accordance with law.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of determining the maintainability of a suit under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, before proceeding to the merits of the case.
• The Court highlighted that lower courts should properly examine whether a juristic person, like a society, can file a representative suit.
• This case clarifies that the issue of jurisdiction must be addressed at any stage of the proceedings.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the parties to appear before the Trial Court on 03.10.2017. The Trial Court was directed to decide the suit within one year.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the maintainability of a suit under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, must be determined before the case is decided on its merits. The Supreme Court has not made any new law but has clarified the procedure to be followed by the lower courts while dealing with a suit filed under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in S.N.D.P. Sakhayogam vs. Kerala Atmavidya Sangham emphasizes the need for lower courts to thoroughly examine the maintainability of representative suits filed by societies under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The case was remanded to the Trial Court to determine if the suit was maintainable before deciding on the merits of the property dispute.