Defendants lack locus standi to contest recovery of property encroached upon in a representative suit.

The plaintiff instituted a representative suit seeking mandatory injunction and damages alleging that the defendants had illegally demolished a compound wall.

Following the Advocate Commissioner’s report, it was found that the defendants had encroached upon a portion of the plaintiff’s property and opened a new road through it.

With the assistance of the Taluk Surveyor, a report and plan—Ext. C2—were prepared identifying the encroached portion as plot ‘A’.

The plaint was subsequently amended to seek recovery of possession, and the amendment was allowed without objection from the defendants.

The defendants contended that the local authority/Panchayat was a necessary party, but the Trial Court rejected the objection and decreed the suit on the basis of Ext. C2.

The appellate court affirmed the decree. The defendants then preferred the present Regular Second Appeal.

Whether the suit for recovery of possession could be decreed in the absence of the concerned local authority/Panchayat as a party.

Whether the relief of recovery of possession could be granted when the original prayers for mandatory injunction and damages had been declined.

Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below disclosed any substantial question of law warranting admission of the Regular Second Appeal.

In a Regular Second Appeal, interference is permissible only where a substantial question of law arises; concurrent findings based on appreciation of evidence ordinarily will not be disturbed in the absence of such a question.

A person who has no legal interest in the subject matter lacks locus standi to challenge the plaintiff’s claim on behalf of a local authority.

In a representative suit, the concerned local authority may itself object if its interests are affected; its absence does not, by itself, defeat the plaintiff’s claim where the dispute is otherwise established through title and reliable survey evidence.

The court may grant recovery of possession pursuant to an amendment supported by the pleadings and evidence, particularly where the amendment was allowed without objection.

The High Court held that the findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were factual findings based on the Advocate Commissioner’s report and the Taluk Surveyor’s plan.

Ext. C2 specifically identified plot ‘A’ as part of the plaintiff’s property that had been trespassed upon and converted into a road.

The remaining portion of a coconut tree situated on the eastern boundary further supported the identification of the disputed portion.

Since the amendment seeking recovery of possession had been allowed without objection, the defendants could not successfully challenge the consequential relief.

Their objection regarding the non-joinder of the Panchayat was also rejected because they had no locus standi to contest the plaintiff’s claim on behalf of the local authority; if necessary, the authority itself could have appeared and opposed the suit.

These matters involved appreciation of evidence and did not raise any substantial question of law.

It held that the absence of the local authority did not invalidate the decree, that the relief of recovery of possession could be granted on the basis of the amended pleadings and Ext. C2 plan, and that no substantial question of law arose.

The Regular Second Appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the concurrent judgments and decree granting the plaintiff recovery of plot ‘A’ were left undisturbed.