JUDGMENT : This is plaintiffs' appeal against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Shajalpur. One Chhotelal sold his house to a third party. The Porwal community of Shujalpur claimed a right of pre-emption. Seven persons joined together and filed a suit for pre-emption and also applied for permission under S. 27, Gwalior Civil P.C. equivalent to O. 1, R. 8, Civil P.C. to sue in a representative capacity. The trial court held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to file a suit in a representative capacity. As the plaintiffs refused to continue the suit in their personal capacity, the suit was dismissed. The same decree was affirmed by the District Judge. Hence the plaintiffs have filed this second appeal. 2. Mr. Sahasrabuddhe who appears for the appellants contends that as the act of the plaintiffs is in the interest of the community, permission should be given to them to sue in a representative capacity. He further contends that 'HARKISONDAS SHIVLAL v. CHHAGANLAL NARSIDAS', 40 Bom 158, on which both the lower courts have relied, has not been followed in 'ABDUL GHANI SAHIB v. SUBRAMANIA CHETTIAR', AIR 1929 Mad 44 , and 'MAHOMED HASSAN SAHIB v. PODANUR 'SUNNATH JAMATH', AIR 1948 Mad 516. O. 1, R. 8 runs thus : "Where there are numerous persons having the same interest in one suit, one or more of such persons may, with the permission of the court, sue or be sued, or may defend, in such suit, on behalf of or for the benefit of all persons so interested. But the Court shall in such case give, at the plaintiff's expense, notice of the institution of the suit to all such persons either by personal service or, where from the number of persons or any other cause such service is not reasonably practicable, by public advertisement, as the court in each case may direct." There are thus two essentials which must be fulfilled before permission can be given under O. 1, R. 8. (1) The parties must be numerous; and (2) they must have the same interest in the suit. In 40 Bom 158 Batchelor, J., observed as follows :- "We have had a very careful argument from Mr. Desai on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants, but I am of opinion that this suit was misconceived and must fail. (1) The parties must be numerous; and (2) they must have the same interest in the suit. In 40 Bom 158 Batchelor, J., observed as follows :- "We have had a very careful argument from Mr. Desai on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants, but I am of opinion that this suit was misconceived and must fail. As I have shown, the plaintiffs purported to be suing on behalf of the whole Mojumpur section, or sub-caste, by virtue of O. 1, R. 8. But, it seems to me clear upon the very face of things that the plaintiffs could not, under O. 1, R. 8, sue on behalf of those numerous members of the Mojumpur section who admittedly were and are in diametrical opposition to them in this present controversy. In no sense could these persons be said, I think, to be represented by the plaintiffs in this suit. For, in no sense could it be said, as the language of the Rule requires that they and the plaintiffs held the same interest in the suit and that the plaintiffs in bringing this suit were suing for or on behalf of these dissentient members." ' AIR 1929 Mad. 44 ' approved the view taken in 'PERIYAVA NADAR v. NANA', AIR 1921 Mad 682. Napier, J., in that case made the following observations: "Where there are large communities, it is obvious that there must undoubtedly be differences of opinion; and if no suit can be brought by any member of a caste under O. 1, R. 8, unless they represent the view of every member of the community or of a majority whose view bind the whole, this rule is inapplicable to any suit brought to decide questions in issue between the members, and can only be availed of for the purpose of bringing suits on behalf of a community against a third party. I can only say that I have never heard this proposition put forward before us, as a ground of objection to suits which have been filed to ascertain the rights of members of the community inter se. The words are 'where there are numerous persons having the same interest in one suit one or more of such persons may, with the permission of the Court, sue ......... on behalf of all persons ............so interested'. The words are 'where there are numerous persons having the same interest in one suit one or more of such persons may, with the permission of the Court, sue ......... on behalf of all persons ............so interested'. They are not 'the same interest in the subject-matter of the suit' and I have always understood this rule to be applicable to cases where one person seeks to represent a number of other persons who agree with him in the contention which he has raised in the suit as to the rights of the various members of the community." This case was filed to ascertain certain rights of the members of the community inter se. But the present case is quite different. In the present case, it is alleged that the right of preemption accrues to the whole Porwal community. The question is whether a few members of the community can be allowed to sue in a representative capacity when the majority of the community is against such a course of action. 'AIR 1948 Mad 516' on which reliance has been placed is again a case relating to a dispute among the members of the Sunnath Jamath of Podanur. The facts of that case therefore, were different from the facts of the present case. In 'CHANDAPPA INDRA v. JAGATAPALA', AIR 1949 Mad 653, Mack, J., made following observations: "The first condition for the operation of O. 1, R. 8 is that there should be 'Numerous persons having the same interest in one suit'. In such a case one or more of such persons may, with the permission of the court, sue or be sued on behalf of all persons so interested. It is not necessary that all members of a Sangham or of an Association should have an identical interest in the suit. There may be opposition between two groups and bona fide representatives of each group can file a representative suit to have such disputes resolved under O. 1, R. 8, to save multiplicity of suits. The sole criterion is whether the plaintiff or plaintiffs are representatives of numerous persons having the same interest in one suit. There may be opposition between two groups and bona fide representatives of each group can file a representative suit to have such disputes resolved under O. 1, R. 8, to save multiplicity of suits. The sole criterion is whether the plaintiff or plaintiffs are representatives of numerous persons having the same interest in one suit. In the present case, the mere fact that 12 members of the Sangham have appeared and filed affidavits dissociating themselves from the petitioner's suit and strongly opposing him, would not per se deprive the plaintiff of his right to file a representative suit." In 'PE TRUE MAUNG v. U THEY', AIR 1934 Rang 347 Mackney, J., observed as follows: "Although four dissentient members of the society do not wish the suit to be brought, they advance no valid reason why it should not be brought. There is no doubt that the association is functioning and that the plaintiff-respondent has been authorised by a large majority of members to prosecute this suit. No doubt it is all very comfortable for the members of the society who have borrowed money therefrom that they should not be sued for the return of that money, but the majority of the members clearly have a right to sue for its return when they so desire." These two decisions clearly indicate that if the substantial majority of the members of a body are of one opinion an order may be made by the court giving permission under O. 1, R. 8. This being the position in law, the contention put forward by the appellant cannot be accepted. Both the lower Courts have held that not only that it has not been proved that the majority of the Porwal Community is with the plaintiffs but the plaintiffs' witnesses have not even tried to show how many members of the community are with the plaintiffs. It also appears from the record that there are about 30 members of the community and 20 of them objected to the permission being given to the plaintiffs. In these circumstances even if the extreme view expressed by their Lordships of the Bombay High Court in 40 Bom. 158' be not followed, the plaintiffs' appeal cannot succeed. It also appears from the record that there are about 30 members of the community and 20 of them objected to the permission being given to the plaintiffs. In these circumstances even if the extreme view expressed by their Lordships of the Bombay High Court in 40 Bom. 158' be not followed, the plaintiffs' appeal cannot succeed. As laid down in 'AIR 1949 Mad 653' and 'AIR 1934 Rang 347' there must be at least the majority of the community with the plaintiffs before they can be allowed to sue in a representative capacity under O. 1, R. 8. As it is not proved in this case that the majority of the Porwal community is with the plaintiffs, the suit cannot succeed. 3. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.