TAMIL NADU WASHERMEN vs RAMESH
- Court
- Madras High Court
SA No. 625 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
SA No. 625 of 2015
CNR:{HCMA010467162015}
Tamil Nadu Washermen
Association, Mayladuthurai
Pattamangalam Aaraya St,
Rep By Its Secretary Rajendran
Pattamangalam Aaraya Street,
Mayiladuthurai Town,
Nagapattinam District.
Appellant(s)
Vs
1. Ramesh
2.Kumar
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
Second Appeal as against the judgment and decree dated 10.03.2015
passed in A.S. No. 53 of 2013 by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge,
Mayiladuthurai.
For Appellant :: Mr.A.Muthukumar
For Respondent(s) :: Mr.B.Jawahar for R1
R2 ex parte (Notice d/w)
J U D G M E N T
The appellant association is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 166 of 2011 on the
file of learned Additional District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai. The suit was
1\12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 06:42:44 pm )
SA No. 625 of 2015
filed for a declaration declaring that the suit property is in possession and
enjoyment of the plaintiff association and for a consequential injunction
restraining the defendants/respondents herein from interfering with the
possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. By judgment dated 30.08.2013, the
Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs, which was challenged by
nd
the 2 defendant/1st respondent herein in A.S. No. 53 of 2013 before the
learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai. The Lower Appellate
Court, by judgment dated 10.03.2015, allowed the appeal thereby dismissing the
suit on the ground that no proof with regard to the registration of the plaintiff
association was produced and that the suit itself is not maintainable for non-
compliance of the provision of Order 1 Rule 8 CPC. Aggrieved by the said
judgment and decree, the plaintiff association is before this Court in this second
appeal.
2. The facts that led to the filing of this second appeal are as
hereunder:
(i) The appellant/plaintiff association represents the washermen
residing at Mayiladuthurai. The case of the plaintiff association, before the Trial
Court, is that the suit tank is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff
association for the past 50 years and they have been carrying on washing work
peacefully and without any interruption in the suit tank. The suit tank is called
‘ Vannankulam’ . The suit tank has been exclusively used by the members of the
2\12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 06:42:44 pm )
SA No. 625 of 2015
plaintiff association. It is not used for any commercial activity including fishing.
The suit tank is maintained by the members of the plaintiff association. In the
year 2009, when Mayiladuthurai Municipality had tried to lease out fishery
rights in the suit tank by auction, as against the same, the association had filed a
suit in O.S. No. 149 of 2009 seeking permanent injunction and the said suit,
after a full-fledged trial, was also decreed in their favour and no appeal was also
preferred by the Municipality challenging the said decree.
nd
(ii) While so, during the month of December, 2010, the 2 defendant in the
suit/2nd respondent herein, proclaiming that he has got fishery rights in the suit
property, created problems for the plaintiff association, which was objected to,
by the members of the plaintiff association and a legal notice dated 10.12.2010
nd
was issued by them. On receipt of the said notice, the 2 defendant/1st
respondent herein, by way of reply notice dated 28.12.2010, had stated that the
suit tank was used for raising crops for cultivation for the past 40 years.
st
On 22.02.2011, the 1 defendant/2nd respondent herein had issued a notice to
the Secretary of the plaintiff association stating that the suit tank is a village
communal tank and persons owning lands in Pattamangalam Village have a
share in the said tank to raise crops for cultivation and therefore, each of the
defendants have one share in the suit tank. Though the plaintiff association
st
issued a reply notice to the 1 defendant explaining the facts relating to the suit
tank, the defendants tried to interfere with the rights of the plaintiff association
3\12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 06:42:44 pm )
SA No. 625 of 2015
leading to lodging of Police complaint dated 25.03.2011 before the Inspector of
Police, Mayiladuthurai. After investigation, the parties were advised to approach
the Civil Court for redressal of their grievance. Though peace prevailed for
some time, subsequently, on 15.06.2011, when the members of the plaintiff
association indulged in their regular work, it was objected by the defendants and
the members of the plaintiff association were also threatened not to enter the
suit tank, resulting in the plaintiff association filing the suit for declaration and
permanent injunction.
(iii) The defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement
stating that the suit tank situated in Survey No. 486 is a poramboke tank and
that they own nanjai lands in and around the suit tank. According to them, every
year, during the Tamil months of Aadi and Aavani , crops are raised for
cultivation in the suit tank and they have been doing the said work for the past
50 years. It is also their case that the claim of the members of the plaintiff
association that they have been using the suit tank for the past 50 years is not
correct and they do not have any right to restrain the defendants from raising
crops for cultivation in the suit tank. They were not aware of the decree granted
in O.S. No. 149 of 2009 in favour of the plaintiff association and that the said
decree is not binding on them as they were not parties to the said suit. The
nd
father of the 2 defendant had purchased lands in R.S. No. 501/1 and 502, in
and around the suit property, on 20.07.1979 and was in enjoyment of the same
4\12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 06:42:44 pm )
SA No. 625 of 2015
nd
and that the 2 defendant, as his son, is in possession and enjoyment of the
st
same. The 1 defendant also possess nanjai lands, in and around the suit tank
and the water available in the suit tank is used for cultivation of their lands and
they also indulge in fishing activities in the said tank. The defendants further
stated that the plaintiff association was never in possession and exclusive
enjoyment of the suit tank and they do not have any right in the suit tank.
(iv) The Trial Court, after considering the pleadings on both sides, had
framed the following issues:
“(a) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of
declaration as prayed for?
(b) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of
permanent injunction as prayed for?
(c) To what other relief, the plaintiff is entitled?”
(v) On the side of the plaintiff association, P.W.s 1 to 3 were examined
and Exs.A1 to A29 were marked. On the side of the defendants, D.W.s 1 to 3
were examined and Ex.B1 to B3 were marked. The Trial Court, on appreciation
of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that
the defendants failed to prove that they have easement rights in the suit tank and
by judgment dated 30.03.2013 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff
association holding that the plaintiff had proved that the suit tank is under the
enjoyment of their members.
5\12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 06:42:44 pm )
SA No. 625 of 2015
(vi) Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in
nd
O.S. No. 166 of 2011, the 2 defendant in the suit/1st respondent herein
preferred A.S. No. 53 of 2012 before the learned Additional Subordinate Judge,
Mayiladuthurai. The Lower Appellate Court, finding that there is no proof
produced to establish that the plaintiff association is a registered one, observed
that the suit filed is a defective one and is not maintainable since no leave was
obtained from Court prior to the filing of the suit, as envisaged under Order 1
Rule 8 CPC. The Lower Appellate Court also found that the materials placed on
record were not sufficient to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff association;
that the suit tank, being a poramboke property and vested with Mayiladuthurai
Municipality, can be utilised by the washermen of Mayiladuthurai Village for
washing and drying of clothes and the bund of tank can be used by the
defendants for raising nursery crops and that no one has right to carry on fishing
activity or breed fish in the suit tank. Thus, for the said reasons, the Lower
Appellate Court, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court
and allowed the appeal suit by judgment and decree dated 10.03.2015.
Challenging the said judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court, as
already stated, the plaintiff association is before this Court in this second appeal.
3. This Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial
questions of law:
“a. Whether the Lower Appellate Court erred in law in
6\12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 06:42:44 pm )
SA No. 625 of 2015
holding that the plaintiff’s association cannot maintain the suit for
want of registration when the State Association was a registered one
as exhibited by Ex.A-27?
b. When the parent association was a registered one and
the rights of the Washermen were upheld in O.S. No. 149 of 2009
and W.P. No. 36611 of 2003, whether the Lower Appellate Court
erred in law in holding the plaintiff cannot maintain the suit for want
of leave under Order 1 Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code?
c. When the defendants had not raised any issue with
regard to the maintainability of the suit specifically leave under
Order 1 Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code, whether the Lower
Appellate Court erred in law in dismissing the suit for want of leave
under Order 1 Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code.?”
4. Learned counsel for the appellant association, appearing through
virtual mode, submitted that before the Lower Appellate Court, the appellant
association was not heard and set ex parte. He would submit that service of
notice was not proper due to which the appellant association could not
immediately respond to the notice issued. He further submitted that he is ready
to comply with Order 1 Rule 8 CPC before the Lower Appellate Court for
maintaining the representative suit on behalf of the appellant association. He
would also submit that there is a judgment and decree in force in favour of the
appellant association asserting its right to use the suit tank and injuncting the
Municipality from leasing out the fishing rights, wherein the maintainability of
the suit filed by the association had also been considered and accepted. Learned
counsel for the appellant association submitted that the Municipality is also
7\12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 06:42:44 pm )
SA No. 625 of 2015
restrained from changing the nature of the tank or lease out fishing rights by
way of auction to third parties. He would also add that the Lower Appellate
Court failed to consider the case on merits and that the matter may be remitted
back to the Lower Appellate Court so that the appellant/plaintiff association can
argue the appeal on merits.
st
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the 1 respondent/2nd defendant would
submit that admittedly, the suit property is a pond called as ‘ Vannankulam’,
which serves various purposes including irrigation. He further submitted that
some portions of the area are under the enjoyment of the appellant/plaintiff
association for the purpose of washing and drying clothes and that alone would
not give any exclusive right to the appellant/plaintiff association since the relief
claimed in this case is declaration that the suit tank is in exclusive possession
and enjoyment of the appellant/plaintiff association and that others are not
having any right to interfere with their possession and enjoyment. He would
also submit that since the suit property is a public pond/water body, the public
authorities, such as the Municipality, the District Collector, are necessary parties
and that they have not been made parties. The Trial Court patently erred in
entertaining a suit by an unregistered association, without compliance of the
provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 CPC and the judgment passed in the earlier suit
against the Municipality cannot be binding on the defendants.
8\12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 06:42:44 pm )
SA No. 625 of 2015
6. Considered the submissions and perused the materials on record.
7. Admittedly, the plaintiff association is an unregistered association.
It is claimed by them that they have obtained permission from the parent body
to institute a suit. However, they have not filed any such authorisation obtained
from the parent body. Admittedly, at the time filing of the suit, the
appellant/plaintiff association is an unregistered body of individuals claiming
that they represent the interest of Washermen of Mayiladuthurai Municipality.
They had not complied with Order 1 Rule 8 CPC, which contains the provisions
for filing a representative suit for a community or general public or body of
persons. In this case, the Lower Appellate Court has given a specific finding
that the plaintiff association is an unregistered association and that the
provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 CPC have not been complied with and therefore,
the appellant/plaintiff association is not entitled to maintain the suit. These
findings, though rendered in the appeal suit where the plaintiff association was
set ex parte , the fact remains that the declaration claimed by the plaintiff is
pertaining to a public pond, which has been classified as a ‘poramboke’ in the
revenue records and vested with the Municipality. That being so, the
declaratory suit filed, without impleading the authorities, who are managing the
water body, is unsustainable. Even if the water body is under the control of
Mayiladuthurai Municipality, it would be appropriate to hear the Revenue
9\12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 06:42:44 pm )
SA No. 625 of 2015
Authorities to ascertain the irrigation rights of other parties. Accordingly, the
District Collector and Revenue Tahsildar are to be impleaded.
8. This Court is of the view that remanding the matter to the Lower
Appellate Court will not serve any purpose since the appellant/plaintiff
association has to once again initiate proceedings by impleading necessary
parties after complying with the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 CPC. It would be
appropriate for the appellant/plaintiff association to file a fresh suit, after
impleading necessary parties and also by raising appropriate prayer regarding
their rights in the public pond/water body after complying with the mandatory
provisions for maintaining the suit.
9. In the result, this Court does not find any infirmity in the judgment
and decree passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai
in A.S. No. 53 of 2013 and the substantial questions of law raised are answered
against the appellant/plaintiff association. The second appeal stands dismissed
with liberty to the appellant to file a fresh suit by impleading necessary parties
and after complying with the provisions to maintain a suit filed by an
association. No costs.
26-10-2026
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
nv
10\12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 06:42:44 pm )
SA No. 625 of 2015
To
1. The Additional Sub Court,
Mayiladuthurai.
2. The Additional District Munsif Court,
Mayiladuthurai.
11\12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 06:42:44 pm )
SA No. 625 of 2015
K. RAJASEKAR,J.
nv
S.A No. 625 of 2015
26.10.2026
12\12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 06:42:44 pm )