9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Awarding future mesne profits to a party who did not claim them in the suit. 2. Passing a decree in favor of a defendant who has not asked for transposition as a plaintiff in the suit. 3. Estoppel by conduct from claiming possession of an alleged half share of the properties. Detailed Analysis: 1. Future Mesne Profits: The appellants argued that it is not permissible for a court to award future mesne profits to a party who did not claim them in the suit. The court addressed this by referring to Order XX, Rule 2, C.P.C., which allows for the direction of an inquiry into mesne profits from the institution of the suit until the delivery of possession to the decree-holder. The court clarified that while mesne profits prior to the suit require a specific claim, future mesne profits can be awarded under the provisions of Order XX, Rule 2, C.P.C. The court also referenced the decision in Mohd. Amin and others v. Vakil Ahmed and others, noting that the High Court had awarded both past and future mesne profits, but the Supreme Court's decision primarily addressed past mesne profits. The court upheld the High Court's decree for future mesne profits, stating that the plaintiff did claim partition and separate possession of her half share of the properties and past mesne profits, and the first defendant admitted the plaintiff's claim and sought a similar decree. 2. Transposition as Plaintiff: The appellants contended that no decree can be passed in favor of a defendant who has not asked for transposition as a plaintiff in the suit. The court deemed this objection as purely technical. It was noted that under Order I, Rule 10(2) C.P.C., the court has the power to transpose a defendant as a co-plaintiff suo motu to do complete justice between the parties. The court cited the Privy Council's decision in Bhupender v. Rajeshwar, emphasizing that the power ought to be exercised for doing complete justice. The court concluded that since both the plaintiff and the first defendant claimed under the same title, and the special defenses against the first defendant were fully considered by the High Court, the technical defect of not transposing the first defendant as a plaintiff did not warrant interference with the High Court's decree. 3. Estoppel by Conduct: The appellants argued that the first defendant was estopped by her conduct from claiming possession of her alleged half share of the properties. The court analyzed the conduct of the first defendant, including her lack of response to a notice from the plaintiff, her letter to her step-mother expressing no desire for the properties, and her attestation of a will executed by Maddanappa. The court determined that these actions did not justify an inference of estoppel. It was noted that Maddanappa, the father, knew the true legal position of the properties belonging to Puttananjamma and thus could not claim an erroneous belief about his title. The court also referenced Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, stating that estoppel by representation requires that the person claiming estoppel must have acted to their detriment based on the representation. Since no detriment resulted to any of the defendants from the first defendant's actions, the court concluded that the provisions of Section 115 did not apply. The court further dismissed the argument of equitable estoppel and the doctrine of acquiescence, emphasizing that Maddanappa was fully aware of the true state of affairs and thus could not claim any mistaken belief caused by the first defendant's conduct. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decree, dismissing the appeal with costs. The court confirmed that the first defendant was neither estopped from claiming possession of her half share of the properties nor liable to pay for the improvements alleged to have been made by the second defendant. The court also validated the award of future mesne profits and addressed the technical objection regarding the transposition of the first defendant as a plaintiff.
|
