9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Liability for mesne profits. 2. Set-off against the purchase price. 3. Period for which mesne profits are awarded. 4. Interest on mesne profits and costs. 5. Award of costs in mesne profits inquiry and appeals. Detailed Analysis 1. Liability for Mesne Profits The main contention was whether both defendants 2 and 3 were liable for mesne profits or only defendant 3. The decree dated April 22, 1958, stated that only the defendant(s) in actual possession would be liable for mesne profits. Defendant 3 had consistently claimed he was never in possession of the property. However, the Court of first instance and the High Court found that defendant 3 was in sole and exclusive possession of the suit property from March 5, 1951. Therefore, defendant 3 alone was liable for mesne profits. 2. Set-Off Against the Purchase Price The appellant argued that the plaintiff should suffer a set-off against the purchase price deposited by him, due to the withdrawal of Rs. 62,900 by defendant 2. The court rejected this, noting no evidence of collusion between the plaintiff and defendant 2. The decree allowed deduction of amounts due against defendants 1 and 2 from the deposit but did not mention a set-off in favor of defendant 3. 3. Period for Which Mesne Profits Are Awarded The appellant contended that mesne profits should be restricted to three years from the date of the Trial Court's decree. The court clarified that the period of three years mentioned in Order XX Rule 12(1)(c) of the CPC is to be computed from the date of the decree of the Supreme Court, i.e., April 22, 1958. Therefore, the courts below were correct in awarding mesne profits for the period from March 5, 1951, till the delivery of possession in September 1958. 4. Interest on Mesne Profits and Costs The High Court had reduced the interest rate on mesne profits from 6% to 4%. The Supreme Court found this reduction unjustified and restored the interest rate to 6% per annum. Additionally, the Trial Court had awarded interest on Rs. 30,000 (rent collected by the Receiver) for the period from August 19, 1953, to March 9, 1959, which the High Court disallowed. The Supreme Court restored this interest, noting it was claimed under Section 144 of the CPC by way of restitution. 5. Award of Costs in Mesne Profits Inquiry and Appeals The plaintiff contended that costs had been unfairly denied in the mesne profits inquiry and appeals. The Supreme Court upheld the discretion of the lower courts in denying costs, considering the circumstances, including the death of defendant 3 and the involvement of his widow. Conclusion The Supreme Court partly allowed the plaintiff's appeal (Civil Appeal No. 2375 of 1969) by restoring the interest rate on mesne profits to 6% per annum and awarding interest on the Rs. 30,000 rent collected by the Receiver. The defendant's appeal (Civil Appeal No. 466 of 1969) was dismissed except for allowing a set-off of Rs. 14,000 as interest on the Rs. 50,000 deposit. Interest on the outstanding amount at 6% per annum was payable till the date of payment. Parties were directed to bear their own costs in Civil Appeal 466 of 1969.
|
