Back
2010 Supreme(SC) 82
2010 (1) Supreme 289
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph, JJ.
Union of India — Appellant
versus
Raja Mohammed Amir Mohammad Khan — Respondent
I.A. No. 47 and 48
In
Civil Appeal No. 2501 of 2002
Dated: 19-01-2010.
Headnote:Enemy Property Act, 1968- Interpretation of the order of the Supreme Court under- Meaning of mesne profits- Distinction between rents and profits collected prior to the order of status-quo and thereafter-
‘Notwithstanding the use of the expression “mesne profits” in the first part of the directions given by this Court, what was intended was that all rents and profits collected in respect of the Estate of Raja of Mahmudabad prior to the order of status-quo passed on 5th April, 2002, would have to be treated separately and not with the other collections made from the estate. The use of the expression “mesne profits”, in our view, would cover all the monies received by the Custodian for the period prior to 5th April, 2002, and would, thereafter, be covered by the aforesaid order of this Court directing the appellant to release to the respondent the sum of Rs.1,77,38,828.11 held by the Custodian to the credit of the Estate of Raja of Mahmudabad. The interpretation sought to be given to the second part of this Court’s order extracted above, will not include handing over of possession of the rents and profits prior to 5.4.2002, which had been excluded in the previous paragraph of the judgment of this Court. In our view, the directions given to the appellants to hand over the possession of other properties, mentioned in the second part of the order extracted hereinabove, relates to the immovable properties of the estate and not to the rents and profits collected by the Custodian from the estate prior to 5.4.2002. The two sets of properties are dealt with separately and are on two different settings. Mr. Kapur’s attempt to include both the movable and immovable properties of the Estate of Raja of Mahm-udabad is misconceived and is not acceptable. Since the amount recorded in the Custodian’s ledger as being credited to the Estate of Raja of Mahmudabad represents the collections made from the estate prior to the order of status-quo passed on 5th April, 2002, the Respondent has been given leave to recover the same by filing a suit. In view of the said order passed by this Court, it can no longer be argued that the directions to make over the possession of other properties to the applicant also included the rents and profits collected from the estate prior to 5.4.2002. (Para 15)
Facts of the case:
Appeals were filed for a direction upon the Union of India, and the Custodian of Enemy Property to release to the Respondent a sum of Rs.1,77,38,828.11, being held by the said Custodian on account of the Estate of the Raja of Mahmudabad.
Findings of the Court:
Notwithstanding the use of the expression “mesne profits” in the directions given by the Supreme Court, what was intended was that all rents and profits collected in respect of the Estate of Raja of Mahmudabad prior to the order of status-quo passed on 5th April, 2002, would have to be treated separately and not with the other collections made from the estate. The use of the expression “mesne profits”, would cover all the monies received by the Custodian for the period prior to 5th April, 2002, and would, thereafter, be covered by the aforesaid order of the Supreme Court directing the appellant to release to the respondent the sum of Rs.1,77,38,828.11 held by the Custodian to the credit of the Estate of Raja of Mahmudabad.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Altamas Kabir, J. —
1. These two I.A. Nos.47 and 48 of 2008 have been filed on behalf of the Respondent in connection with Contempt Petition No.87 of 2006 filed in Civil Appeal No.2501 of 2002, inter alia, for a direction upon the Union of India, and the Custodian of Enemy Property to release to the Respondent a sum of Rs.1,77,38,828.11, being held by the said Custodian on account of the Estate of the Raja of Mahmudabad.
2. It may be recalled that in Writ Petition No.1524 of 1977 filed by the applicant herein, Raja Mohammed Amir Mohammad Khan, (Raja MAM Khan for short), the Bombay High Court, while allowing the writ petition, had directed the return of the properties of the Raja of Mahmudabad to the applicant. The decision of the Bombay High Court was challenged by the Union of India in this Court in Civil Appeal No.2501 of 2002, which was disposed of on 21.10.2005, inter alia, with the following directions :
“The High Court had refused to grant the mesne profits to the respondents, against the aforesaid finding no appeal has been filed by the respondent. Since no appeal has been filed, the appellants are not entitled to the mesne profits till the passing of the interim orders of status quo by this Court on 5.4.2002. The respondent would be entitled to the actual mesne profits by filing a suit, if so advised for this period. However, whatever moneys have been collected by the appellants by way of rent or lease etc. after 5.4.2002, till the handing over of the possession of these properties to the respondent be deposited/disbursed to the respondent within 8 weeks.
The appellants are directed to get the buildings (residence or offices) vacated from such officers and handover the possession to the respondent within eight weeks. Similarly, appellants are directed to handover the possession of other properties as well. The officers who are in occupation of the buildings for their residence or for their offices are also directed to immediately vacate and handover the buildings or the properties to the Custodian to enable him to handover the possession to the respondent in terms of the directions given. Failure to comply with the directions to handover the possession within 8 weeks will constitute disobedience of this order and the appellants would be in contempt of this order. Respondent would be at liberty to move an application in this Court if the above directions are not complied with for taking appropriate action against the appellants or their agents. Since the appellants have retained the possession of the properties illegally and in a high handed manner for 32 years the appeal is dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 5 lacs.”
3. In I.A. No. 47 it has been stated that when the properties were taken over by the Custodian, the amounts due and payable by the various occupants were collected by the office of the Custodian and credited to the account of the Estate of Mahmudabad in the Ledger of the Custodian maintained in his office at Mumbai. In view of the judgments of the Bombay High Court and this Court, holding the applicant to be the sole legal heir and successor of the Late Raja of Mahmudabad, he had succeeded to the properties belonging to the late Raja which had been taken over by the Custodian of Enemy Property under the provisions of the Enemy Property Act, 1968. It has further been contended that it could not, therefore, be disputed that the applicant is entitled to the moneys standing to the credit of the Estate of Mahmudabad in the Ledger Account maintained by the Custodian of Enemy Property.
4. According to the applicant, after continuous efforts, a copy of the Ledger Account was supplied to him in the month of December, 2007, by the office of the Custodian of Enemy Property and on perusal of the same it was discovered that a sum of Rs.1,77,38,828.11 stood credited to the account of the applicant as on 27.3.2002. On coming to know of the above, the applicant requested the Custodian by his letter date
