9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to mesne profits beyond three years from the date of the decree. 2. The High Court's refusal to allow the appellant to raise a new ground of appeal. 3. The quantum of mesne profits awarded by the High Court. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement to Mesne Profits Beyond Three Years from the Date of the Decree: The main point for determination was whether mesne profits could be awarded to the decree-holder for a period subsequent to the expiry of three years from the date of the High Court's decree, i.e., subsequent to March 7, 1941. The contention for the judgment-debtor was that mesne profits cannot be awarded for the period subsequent to March 7, 1941, in view of the provisions of Order 20, Rule 12, CPC. The Court agreed with the appellant's contention that the High Court was in error in not allowing the appellant to urge this additional ground before it, as it was a pure question of law. The Court held that a decree under Rule 12, Order 20, CPC, directing enquiry into the mesne profits, however expressed, must be construed to be a decree directing the enquiry into the mesne profits in conformity with the requirements of Rule 12(1)(c) of Order 20, and that the decree-holder in this case cannot get mesne profits for the period subsequent to March 7, 1941, when the three-year period from the date of the High Court decree expired. 2. The High Court's Refusal to Allow the Appellant to Raise a New Ground of Appeal: The High Court had refused the appellant's application to raise an additional ground of appeal on the basis that the appellant had not taken such a ground in the memorandum of appeal and had conceded before the Commissioner and the trial Court that accounts could be taken up to 1943 in respect of A and C schedule properties. The Supreme Court found that the High Court was in error in not allowing the appellant to raise the objection based on the provisions of Order 20, Rule 12, CPC, as it was a pure question of law. The Court emphasized that such pure questions of law are allowed to be raised at later stages too, citing precedents like Yeswant Deorao Deshmukh v. Walchand Ramchand Kothari and Connecticut Fire Insurance Co. v. Kavanagh. 3. The Quantum of Mesne Profits Awarded by the High Court: The appellant contended that the High Court was in error in arbitrarily fixing a higher amount of mesne profits than what had been adjudged by the trial Court, which had itself arbitrarily increased the mesne profits suggested by the Commissioner. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had not given good reasons for decreeing mesne profits at a higher rate than that fixed by the trial Court. The High Court overlooked the period of depression and fixed one rate for the period 1926 to 1940 and another rate for the period 1941 to 1943, thus ignoring the long period of depression. The High Court also awarded profits at a rate higher than what was even claimed by the decree-holder in regard to item No. 9 of the A-Schedule properties. The Court concluded that the High Court had not come to grips with the question of proper mesne profits and varied the rates without expressing its reasons for holding that the Subordinate Judge was wrong in his findings regarding the quantum of mesne profits. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal with costs, set aside the decree of the High Court, and remanded the case to the High Court to determine afresh the quantum of mesne profits up to March 7, 1941, and to dispose of the appeal according to law. The appeal preferred by the respondent for a further enhancement of the amount of mesne profits was dismissed.
|
