Back
1948 Supreme(SC) 5
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD DU PARCQ, LORD NORMAND AND SIR MADHAVAN NAIR.
SRI RAJA INUGANTI VENKATARAJAGOPALA RAMA SURYAPRAKASA RAO GARU - Appellant
Versus
MAHARAJA OF PITHAPURAM - Respondents
On appeal from the High Court at Madras.
Decided On : Jan. 20. 1948.
Solicitors for the appellants in the first two appeals : Hy. S. L. Polak & Co Solicitor for the appellant in the third appeal : Harold Shephard.
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Property Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 - Section 3(5) and Section 67 - Right to sue for rents collected by a statutory landholder - A person recognized as landholder under the Act is clothed with full authority to collect rents, and such acts are binding upon the party ultimately held entitled to the estate - The statutory landholder does not collect rents as a trustee for the opposing party, as their interest is adverse - The right to sue for recovery of such profits does not accrue incrementally each time rent is received, but only after the statutory recognition is cancelled following the final determination of title - This prevents the multiplication of unnecessary suits pendente lite.
Facts of the case:
While litigation regarding the title of an estate was pending, the respondent was recognized as the landholder by the collector under statutory provisions, authorizing the respondent to manage the estate and collect rents. Following a final judicial determination that the appellants were the rightful owners, the statutory recognition of the respondent was cancelled. The appellants subsequently filed a suit for the recovery of all rents and profits collected by the respondent during the entire period of statutory possession. The lower courts differed on whether the limitation period under the Limitation Act should be applied from the date of each receipt or from the date the statutory recognition was cancelled.
Findings of Court:
The court held that because the respondent had statutory authority to collect rents and profits, the receipt of such sums was not wrongful, and therefore Article 109 of the Limitation Act did not apply. It further found that the respondent was not a quasi-trustee for the appellants. The right to recover the profits accrued only after the statutory order was cancelled following the final decision on the title of the estate.
Issues: Whether the collection of rents by a person recognized as landholder under statutory authority constitutes "wrongful receipt" under Article 109 of the Limitation Act, and whether the right to sue for such profits accrues incrementally or only upon the cancellation of the statutory recognition.
Ratio Decidendi: Statutory authority to collect rents precludes a finding of "wrongful" possession. A statutory landholder's interest is adverse to the claimants, and they do not act as a trustee. To fulfill the statutory purpose of regulating possession pendente lite and preventing a multiplicity of suits, the right of action to recover rents and profits accrues only after the statutory recognition is revoked following the final determination of title.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
property law
-
land tenure
- statutory landholder
-
land tenure
-
practice and procedure
-
limitation
- recovery of profits
-
limitation
Judgement
Consolidated Appeals (No. 54 of 1944) from a judgment and two decrees of the High Court (December 11, 1941) modifying a preliminary and a final decree of the Subordinate Court of Cocanada (March 7, 1937 and March 25, 1938).
The following facts are taken from the judgment of the Judicial Committee. In 1923 there was pending a litigation between the Maharaja of Pithapuram (respondent in the first two of these consolidated appeals and appellant in the cross-appeal) and the plaintiffs in the present suit (appellants respectively in the first two appeals and respondents in the cross-appeal), in which the Maharaja claimed that he was the nearest reversioner entitled to succeed to the estate of Gollaprolu. The Maharaja held a decree pronounced in his favour by the District Judge of Rajahmundry but the present plaintiffs had appealed against it to the Madras High Court. While that appeal was pending the Maharaja, on November 10, 1923, applied to the collector of Gadavari to be recognized as the landholder of the estate for the purposes of the Madras Estates Land Act subject to the ultimate result of the litigation then pending. After sundry procedure not germane to the present issue the collector, on January 12, 1924, made an order under s. 3, sub-s. 5, of the Madras Estates Land Act by which he recognized the Maharaja as the landholder for the purposes of the Act. The Maharaja accordingly entered into possession of the estate and collected the rents and profits. The litigation pending between him and the present plaintiffs was protracted and was not finaly brought to an end till the Order in Council of July IS, 1935, the effect of which was to find that the present plaintiffs were entitled to the estate. On September 7, 1935, the collector of Gadavari cancelled his previous order of January 12, 1924, and recognized the present plaintiffs as the landholders of the estate.
The plaintiffs brought the present suit in October, 1935, for recovery of the rents and profits received by the Maharaja during the period of his possession and management of the estate. The Maharaja pleaded that he had been in wrongful possession of the estate during the whole period and that the suit for mesne profits for more than three years from the date when the profits were received was barred by the Indian Limitation Act, sch. I., art. 109. The trial judge held that the Maharajas possession of the estate under the order of January 12, 1924, had not been wrongful, and that he had collected the rents and profits as a quasi-trustee for the benefit of the plaintiffs and was bound to account to them for the rents and profits received in the full period of his possession. By a preliminary decree he directed the Maharaja to render accounts; and after the accounts were taken he granted a final decree on March 25, 1938. Appeals were preferred to the High Court (Wadsworth and Patanjali Sastri JJ.), who agreeing with the trial judge, held that the Maharajas possession had not been wrongful and consequently that art. 109 of the first schedule of the Limitation Act did not apply. But, differing from the trial Judge, the High Court held that a right to sue the Maharaja had accrued to the plaintiffs each time he had received the rents and profits. Accordingly, the High Court, in para. No. 1 of their decree of December 11, 1941, disallowed the plaintiffs claim to recover rents and profits received more than six years before the commencement of the suit, as being barred by art. 120 of the first schedule of the Limitation Act.
The question for determination in this appeal was whether, or to what extent, the Indian Limitation Act
Law. Rep. 75 Ind. App. 101 ( 1947- 1948) Raja Inuganti Venkatarajagopala v. Maharaja of Pithapuram 57
affected the plaintiffs claim against the Maharaja of Pithapuram for payments of sums amounting to Rupees 7,38,000 received by him as rents from the Gollaprolu Zamindari estate during the period from January 12, 1924, to September 7, 1935.
Ar
