Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SARKAR, C.J.I., J.R. MUDHOLKAR AND R.S. BACHAWAT, JJ.
Gopalakrishna Pillai and others, Appellants
Versus
Meenakshi Ayal and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 79 of 1964, D/- 31-3-1966.
Advocates appeared
Mr. N. C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate, (Mr. R. Ganapathy Iyer, Advocate, with him), for Appellants; Mr. T. V. R. Tatachari Advocate, for Respondents Nos. 1 and 3 to 7.
-with regard to past mesne profits, a plaintiff has an existing cause of action on the date of the institution of the suit. In view of Order 7, Rules 1 and 2 and Order 7, Rule 7 of the Code and Section 7(1) of the Court Fees Act, the plaintiff must plead this cause of action, specifically claim a decree for the past mesne profits, value the claim approximately and pay Court-fees thereon
-with regard to future mesne profits the plaintiff has no cause of action on the date of the institution of the suit, and it is not possible for him to plead this cause of action or to value it or to pay Court fees thereon at the time of institution of this suit. Moreover, he can obtain relief in respect of this future cause of action only in a suit to which provisions of Order 20, Rule 12 apply. But in a suit to which the provision of Order 20, Rule 12 apply, the Court has a discretionary power to pass a decree directing an enquiry into the future mesne profits, and the Court may direct this general relief, though it is not specifically asked for in the plaint
-this Rule is not mandatory but merely directory. The Court has discretion to direct an inquiry into future mesne profits; it is under no obligation to do so - Gopalakrishna Pillai v. Meenakshi Ayal, AIR 1967 SC 155. Directions as to mesne profits is within the discretion of the court. Irrespective of whether the plaintiff has prayed for them or not, if the court thinks fit to give direction as to future mesne profits it can give such directions under this Rule - Maddanappa v. Chandramma, 1965 SC 1812. It is not necessary to incorporate relief for mesne profits in the plaint itself, it can be asked for by way of a subsequent petition under this Rule. But it was held in an earlier case, Mohd. Amin v. Vakil Ahmed, AIR 1952 SC 358, that the relief of mesne profits must be specifically claimed in the plaint; a mere general relief is not sufficient. Also held in Bhagwati v. Chandramaul, AIR 1966 SC 735, the mesne profits prior to the date of the suit cannot be awarded unless a claim was made in respect of them and also held that the claim for future mesne profits is governed by this Rule. A decree of ejectment must be accompanied by a direction for payment of the future mesne profits or damages, where plaintiff s case of tenancy is not proved but the possession of the plaintiff is found that of a licensee. However in the case of Meerla Ramanna v. Nallaparaju, AIR 1956 SC 87, the plaintiff’s suit for declaration of title failed but he succeeded on the basis of his possession and the trial was unnecessarily prolonged and hence it was held that it would be just and proper that the plaintiff would not be granted mesne profits upto the date of judgment. In the case of Thakur Bhim Singh v. Thakur Kan Singh, (1980) 3 SCC 72, the operation of the decree was stayed by the High Court and in view of the decree passed by the High Court, the defendant continued to be in possession of the suit and thereby twenty years elapsed it was held by the Supreme Court that the defendant be directed to pay mesne profits till that day of the order of the Supreme Court and an enquiry was directed to be made under this Rule to determine mesne profits payable to the defendant after such date of the order of the Supreme Court till the date of delivery of possession. As observed in Girdharilal v. Hukam Singh, AIR 1977 SC 129, for determining whether the provisions of this Rule apply to a suit, the allegation made in the plaint have to be seen, it is immaterial that eventually a decree is not passed in terms of the prayers contained in the plaint. As held in Dalhousie Properties v. Soorajmull, AIR 1977 SC 223, where the plaintiff claims mesne profits at a certain rate, he must be given opportunity to prove the same. Where no opportunity is given Order passed by the Court is illegal.
-once it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to object the defendant, it follows that from the date of decree granting relief of ejectment to the plaintiff the defendant who remains in possession of the property despite the decree, must pay mesne profits or damages for use and occupation of the said property until it is delivered to the plaintiff. A decree in such a case must be accompanied by a direction for payment of the future mesne profits or damages -
-the court has power to grant future mesne profits also, but where the party has failed to claim past mesne profits and the suit is confined to the relief of declaration of title and possession, the future mesne profits cannot be granted-
-in a suit to which this Rule applies the court has a discretionary power to pass a decree directing an enquiry into the future mesne profits, and the court may grant this general relief, though it is not specifically asked for in the plaint -
-this Rule enables the court to pass a decree for both past and future mesne profits but there are important distinctions in the procedure for the enforcement of the two claims. With regard to past mesne profits, a plaintiff has an existing cause of action on the date of the institution of the suit. In view of Order 7, Rule 7 of the Code and Section 7(1) of the Court Fees Act, the plaintiff must plead this cause of action, specially claim a decree for the past mesne profits, value the claim approximately and pay court fees thereon. With regard to the future mesne profits the plaintiff has no cause of action on the date of the institution of the suit and it is not possible for him to plead this cause of action on to the value of it or to pay court fees thereon at the time of institution of the suit -
Judgement
BACHAWAT, J. : The following pedigree shows the relationship of Sivasami Odayar and the members of his family :
Sivasami died issueless in 1927. By his will dated September 14, 1927, he bequeathed items 1 to 4 and one half of items 12 and 13 of the suit properties to his wife, Neelayadakshi absolutely and items 5 to 11 and one half of items 12 and 13 to his mother, Chinnayal absolutely. He also appointed Chinnayal as the trustee of items 14 to 18 for the benefit of the Pillayar temple. Neelayadakshi died in 1931. It is common case that on her death Chinnayal inherited her properties as a limited heir. Defendants 6 and 7 claimed that their father purchased item 4 from one Muthukumaraswami, agent of Chinnayal, under a sale deed, dated June 5, 1937 On August 28 1940, Chinnayal executed a deed of gift in favour of Muthukumaraswami giving him items 1, 3 and 8 and portions of items 5 and 13. On September 4, 1940, Chinnayal is said to have executed a will bequeathing to Muthukumaraswami the remaining properties belonging to her absolutely and inherited by her as a limited heir from Neelayadakshi and also items 14 to 18 and her trusteeship right in respect of those items. Chinnayal died on September 15, 1940. It is common case that the plaintiffs are her heirs. Soon after her death, Muthukumaraswami conveyed to one Venugopala all the properties acquired by him under the aforesaid gift deed and will. Venugopala died in 1943 leaving defendants l to 5 as his heirs. In or about August 1952, Meenakshi and Kamakshi instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore for possession of the suit properties alleging that they were entitled to the properties left by Chinnayal and Neelayadakshi and denying the factum and validity of the gift deed, dated August 28, 1940, the will dated September 4, 1940 and the alleged sale in favour of the father of defendants 6 and 7. The defendants contested the suit.
2. The Courts below held that (1) Chinnayal had no power to dispose of any of the properties which she had inherited from Neelayadakshi as a limited heir, (2) Chinnayal duly executed the gift deed and by that deed she lawfully disposed of item 8 and portions of items 5 and 13, and (3) there was no sale of item 4 to the father of defendants 6 and 7. These findings are no longer challenged. The Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiffs failed to prove that they were the reversioners of Neelayadakshi, or were entitled to inherit her properties on the death of Chinnayal, and that the will dated September 4, 1940 was forged and its execution and attestation were not proved. The plaintiffs and the defendants preferred separate appeals from this decree to the Madras High Court. Ramaswami, J. held that the will was genuine and was duly executed and attested but it was inoperative with regard to items 14 to 18 and the trusteeship rights in those items. He also held that the question whether the plaintiffs were the next reversioners of Neelayadakshi should be tried afresh by the trial Court. Thereafter, Kamakshi died and her legal representatives were substituted on the record. Meenakshi and the legal representatives of Kamakshi filed an appeal under Cl. 15 of the Letters Patent of the High Court, and the appellants filed cross-objections. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that the will was not genuine and its execution and attestation were not proved. It also held that on the materials on the record the plaintiffs must be held to be the next reversioners of Neelayadakshi. On this finding, the Division Bench passed a decree in favour of the appellants before them for the recovery of possession of items 1 to 4, 3 cents in item 5, items 6, 7 and 9 to 13 and items 14 to 18, declared that they were entitled to mesne profits for three years prior to the suit and to future mesne profits in respect of the aforesaid properties, directed the trial Court to make an enquiry into the mesne profits under O. 20, R. 12 of the Code of Ci
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
