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

1961 Supreme(Cal) 82

PURUSHOTTAM CHATTERJEE
BHOURILAL AGARWALLA – Appellant
Versus
ASHUTOSH ROY – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
CHANDRA GUPTA, SUSHIL KUMAR BISWAS

PURUSHOTTAM CHATTERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The plaintiff instituted the previous suit for ejectment, for rent and for mesne profits. In that suit the claim for mesne profits was not pressed and therefore that claim was dismissed. Subsequently the present suit was instituted claiming mesne profits.

( 2 ) THE first point taken by the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that this is really a suit for profits and therefore, the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. A person may lawfully be entitled to some benefits arising out of a property. This we understand to be profit. But when a person gets some benefit of a property because of his wrongful possession, we do not call it profit, we call it mesne profits. Therefore, profits within the meaning of the Article under the Small Cause Courts Act does not include mesne profits. Finally the matter came up betore a Full Bench of this Court and it was held that the suit for mesne profits was a suit in the nature of being cognizable by a Small Cause Court.

( 3 ) MR. Sen Gupta on behalf of the petitioner further states that here there was no dispossess







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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top