Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.23 seconds)
Documents citing Rathnaswami Nadar And Ors. vs The Prince Of Arcot'S Endowments Under ... on 30 March, 1938

Kodia Goundar And Anr. vs Velandi Goundar And Ors. on 24 September, 1954

In 'Ratnaswami Nadar v. Prince of Arcot's Endowments', AIR 1938 Mad 755 (M), certain defendants were sued under Order 1 Rule 8, as representing a large number of villagers holding a tenure called Karaiyedu on the ground that they had taken unlawful possession of the land and a decree for possession and mesne profits for a consolidated sum was passed by the trial Court. In appeal the decree was confirmed except in so far as it pertained to the recovery of mesne profits. While observing that there was sufficient community of interest as between the defendants to render Order 1, Rule 8 applicable, the learned Judges were of the opinion that the lower court was wrong in passing a decree for mesne profits. They further observed at pp. 755-756:
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 40 - Full Document

Mahagujarat Hawkers Vepari Mahajan vs The Municipal Corporation on 3 August, 1977

6. The provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code have given rise to a number of precedents in the annals of law. Order 1 Rule 8 presupposes the existence of the right of the suit in the community. A representative suit be brought for declaration, injunction or even possession, vide A.I.R. 1938 Madras p. 755, the case of Ratnaswami Nadar v. Prince of Arcot's Endowments. Thus, a representative suit for declaration by some of the agriculturists (call ryots) that they are entitled to certain permanent remissions under a contract with a Zindar is maintainable under Order 1 Rule 8. The rule is a rule of convenience based upon reason and good policy and saves the trouble and expenses which would otherwise have to be incurred in such cases.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1