Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 17846
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr Justice V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
MINOR I.RANGANAYAGI – Appellant
Versus
P.SRIKANTH – Respondent
A party can amend a plaint to seek mense profits, but is constrained by statutory time limits and the implications of prior ownership disputes.
Headnote:
Mense Profits - Property Dispute - Transfer of Property Act - Section 52 - The court discussed the implications of lis pendens on property claims while allowing the plaintiffs to amend their plea for mense profits, emphasizing time limits and previous ownership.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought a declaration of title and recovery of possession for property claimed to have been settled in their favor. The defendant contested the ownership, claiming it was joint family property, resulting in the dismissal of an application to amend the plaint for mense profits.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the plaintiffs should be allowed to amend their plaint for mense profits despite the defendant's claims of joint ownership. It clarified the timelines for claims and the effects of the earlier suit on the current proceedings.
Issues: Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to amend their plaint to include a prayer for mense profits despite the claim of lis pendens and the defendant's assertion of joint family ownership.
Ratio Decidendi: The amendment to include mense profits does not change the cause of action and is permissible; however, the plaintiffs are limited by the statutory time frame for such claims.
Final Decision: The order was set aside, allowing the plaintiffs to amend their plaint for mense profits from June 2019 onwards while rejecting claims for earlier periods.
ORDER
The present civil revision petition arises against the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge cum Fast Track Court at Vellore in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in O.S.No.72 of 2022.
2. O.S.No.72 of 2022 is a suit filed on 01.06.2022 for a declaration of title of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule mentioned property and for consequential relief of recovery of possession.
3. The claim of the plaintiffs is that the property originally belonged to one Sheshathiri, who subsequently sold the property to one V.M.Purushothaman. The said V.M.Purushothaman is none else than the father of the defendant/P.Srikanth. The father of the defendant settled the property in favour of one of his sons viz., Prabhakaran who had sold the property to the mother of the plaintiffs by way of a registered sale deed dated 12.12.2013. Subsequently, the mother of the plaintiffs settled the property in favour of the plaintiffs on 27.01.2022. As the plaintiffs have become the absolute owners of the property, they presented the suit for the aforesaid reliefs.
4. As pointed out above, when the suit was originally presented, the relief of mense profits had not been sought. Noticing this defect, an application was taken in I.A.No.3 of 2022 seeking to add the relief of damages for use and mense profits from April 2014 till the date of filing of the suit on 01.06.2022.
5. The case of the respondent is that the property is not the absolute property of V.M.Purushothaman but a joint family property of V.M.Purushothaman, the defendant, and his brother Prabhakaran. Claiming that he has a share in the property, the defendant had already filed O.S.No.106 of 2013. Therefore, the argument of the defendant is that the settlement in favour of the plaintiff is hit by the principle of lis pendens and therefore, they are not entitled to claim for mense profits.
6. The learned trial judge seems to have been persuaded by the argument of the defendant and dismissed I.A.No.3 of 2024. Challenging the same, the present revision petition.
7. Heard Mrs.Valsala Kumari for the petitioners and Mr.Prakash Goklany for the respondent.
8. From the narration of the facts set forth above, it is clear that the plaintiffs' suit is one for a declaration of title and for recovery of possession. Normally, a party is entitled for mense profits if such prayer is sought even on the date of presentation of the plaint. Mense profit is, of course, subject to the plaintiffs proving their title to the property.
9. The factum that the settlement in favour of the plaintiffs is lis pendens is an admitted fact. The effect of the lis pendens enshrined under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act does not prevent the plaintiffs from seeking mense profits. The effect of is that in case the partition suit filed in O.S.No.106 of 2013 is decreed, the suit itself in O.S.No.72 of 2022 seeking a declaration of title will have to be dismissed.
10. The fact that the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs/
Mr.P.Prabhakaran has a share is conceded by the defendant himself by virtue of presenting a suit for partition. Therefore, the only dispute that the trial court would have to decide is whether it is joint family property, and if it comes to the conclusion that it is joint family property, consequent orders will have to be passed in the present suit. If the court comes to the conclusion that it is not joint family property, then this suit necessarily has to be decreed.
11. A perusal of the plaint shows that the suit has been filed on
01.06.2022. The plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession are entitled to mense profits for three years prior to the presentation of the plaint. As that prayer has been left out, the plaintiffs want to amend the plaint.
12. As rightly contended by Mr.Prakash Goklany, there is no way that the plaintiff can succeed in seeking damages for the period from April 2014 to 01.06.2022. This is because, even if they sought mense profits on the date of presentation of the
