Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J
Mridula Shukla Pandey – Appellant
Versus
Kamlesh Kumari – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and factual background of the mesne profits claim. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. appellant arguments regarding property condition and alleged willingness to surrender possession. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. holding that continued actual possession creates liability for mesne profits despite claims of uninhabitable property. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. validation of the trial court's reasonable assessment of quantum of damages based on location and area. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
1. Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) has been filed against the Judgment and decree dated 25.03.2025 whereby the learned Additional District Judge, New Delhi has decreed the Suit of the Plaintiff for decree of mesne profits @ Rs.10,000/- per month from 22.09.2017 till the receiving of the possession on 03.12.2021.
2. The brief facts are that the Plaintiff/ Respondent had filed a Suit for Declaration, Permanent Injunction, Rendition of Accounts and Recovery of Mesne Profits. The case of the Respondent was that she which was the owner of property bearing No. H-54, Gyan Mandir Road, Jaitpur, Badarpur, Delhi, having purchased the
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
