SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1979 Supreme(AP) 241

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : VENKATESWARA RAO
Dommaraju Kannepalli Obulu Raju - Appellant
Versus
Dommaraju Vobulu Raja - Respondent
Decided On : 07-12-79

Order 20, Rule 12 (1) (c) (iii) of the Civil Procedure Code is not applicable to a partition action.

Headnote:

PARTITION - ACT-SECTION REFERRED : Order 20, Rule 12 (1) (c) (iii), Civil Procedure Code - SUMMARY: The court held that Order 20, Rule 12 (1) (c) (iii) of the Civil Procedure Code, which limits the period for which an enquiry into mesne profits could be ordered to three years from the date of decree, is not applicable to a partition action. The court reasoned that the claim by the respondent is one for profits in a partition action and not for mesne profits in a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property. Rule 12 of Order 20 is applicable only to cases where mesne profits are sought to be recovered in a suit for possession of immovable property and the term "mesne profits of property" as can be seen from section 2 (12) of Code are those profits which the person in wrongful possession of such property actually received or might with ordinary deligence have received therefrom, together with interest thereon.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner and the respondent are brothers who filed a suit for partition of their joint family properties. The respondent obtained a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of his 1/4th share of the suit properties. The petitioner filed an application under Order 20, Rule 12 (1) (c) (iii) of the Civil Procedure Code, requesting that the enquiry into profits to which the respondent is entitled should be limited to a period of three years from the date of the decree.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that Order 20, Rule 12 (1) (c) (iii) of the Civil Procedure Code is not applicable to a partition action. The court reasoned that the claim by the respondent is one for profits in a partition action and not for mesne profits in a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property. The court also held that the respondent is entitled to profits from the date of the institution of the suit till delivery of possession to him.

Issues: Whether Order 20, Rule 12 (1) (c) (iii) of the Civil Procedure Code is applicable to a partition action.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Order 20, Rule 12 (1) (c) (iii) of the Civil Procedure Code is not applicable to a partition action because the claim by the respondent is one for profits in a partition action and not for mesne profits in a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property. The court also held that the respondent is entitled to profits from the date of the institution of the suit till delivery of possession to him.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's application.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against an order of the learned Additional District Judge, nellore, dismissing I. A. No. 418 of 1978 in i. A. No. 56 of 1976 in O. S. No. 3 of 1967.

( 2 ) THE respondent is the eldest son of the petitioner who has two other sons. He filed o. S. No. 3 of 1967 against them in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nellore, for partition and separate possession of his 1/4 th share of the suit properties alleging that they belong to their joint family. The petitioner resisted the suit contending inter alia that some of the suit properties are his self-acquired properties and that the respondent is, therefore, not entitled to any share in those properties. A preliminary decree for a partition and separate possession by the respondent of his 1/4th share but only in respect of some of the suit items was passed on 30th March, 1968. He preferred an apppeal to the High Court in respect of the disallowed items and succeeded. The Letters Patent Appeal which the petitioner preferred from that decision was dismissed. The respondent thereafter filed I. A. No. 75 of 1970 under Order 20, rule 18 of Civil Procedure Code, for the appointment of a commissioner to divide the properties and to put him in separate possession of his 1/4th share thereof and also for determination of the profits due to him from the date of the institution of the suit till delivery of possession to him. The Commissioner, who was accordingly appointed, submitted his report to the Court on 8th February, 1974 and a final decree was passed on 19th March, 1974. That final decree provided, among other things, that on payment of necessary court-fee, a supplemental final decree for profits be passed in favour of the respondent. The respondent obtained possession of the properties allotted to him under the aforesaid final decree on 30th september, 1974. Since the petitioner made an application to the Court stating that the report of the Commissioner regarding the mesne profits to which the respondent was found entitled by him, is not based on evidence and should not consequently be accepted, another commissioner was appointed by the Court below for ascertainment of profits. After making the necessary enquiry, the said Commissioner submitted his report relating to the amount payable to the respondent towards profits from 7th November, 1963, the date of the suit till 30th September, 1974 when he (respondent) was actually put in possession of the properties allotted to his share. The petitioner filed objections to this report and when that matter came up for hearing, he filed i. A. No. 418 of 1978, out of which this revision has arisen, under section 151, Civil Procedure code, requesting that the maintainability or otherwise of the main petition I. A. No. 56 of 1976 filed by the respondent be determined as a preliminary point in the case, as according to him, the enquiry into profits to which the respondent is entitled should have been limited to a period of three years in view of the provisions of Order 20, rule 12 (1) (c) (iii), Civil procedure Code. This petition was opposed by the respondent. After hearing the parties, the learned District Judge held that the petitioner should be deemed to have waived his objection, if any, for ascertainment of profits for period exceeding three years and that the application is liable to fail for this reason as well as its belated nature and that even otherwise, the contention that the respondent is not entitled to ask for ascertainment of profits for more than three years is untenable and accordingly dismissed I. A. No. 418 of 1978. Hence this petition for revision.

( 3 ) THE specific prayer in I. A. No. 418 of 1978 out of which this revision has arisen, as can be seen from that petition as well as the affidavit filed in support thereof, is that the preliminary objection against the maintainability of I. A. No. 56 of 1976 for ascertainment of future mesne profits for a period exceeding three years from the date of




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top