9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Possession of Suit Property 2. Mesne Profits 3. Compensation for Waste 4. Subsequent Title and Pleading Detailed Analysis: 1. Possession of Suit Property: The plaintiff's appeal sought possession of the entire suit property, mesne profits, and compensation for waste. The lower court dismissed the suit against the 1st and 2nd defendants for 75.76 acres but decreed it against defendants 3 to 6 for the remaining land. The suit land, marked as plots L(i)(a) and L(i)(b), is part of extensive survey fields belonging to the Government. The plaintiff was in possession of the suit land until 1938-39. The Government evicted the plaintiff from the 160 acres land in 1939, and the 1st defendant Society was granted a lease of this land. The 1st defendant claimed possession of the entire suit land since 1939, but the court found that the plaintiff was evicted only from the 160 acres land and not from the suit land. The plaintiff was forcibly dispossessed by the 1st defendant in October 1939. The court held that the plaintiff, having a possessory title, was entitled to recover possession from the 1st defendant, who was a mere trespasser. 2. Mesne Profits: The court assessed mesne profits prior to the suit at Rs. 5000 per annum and subsequent profits at Rs. 31,193 per annum. The 1st defendant was found liable for mesne profits both past and future. The court rejected the 1st defendant's contention that the plaintiff's claim for mesne profits was limited to Rs. 5000 per annum, stating that mesne profits are determined by the court based on evidence. The court also noted that the 1st defendant failed to provide data on the income derived from the property, which it was ordered to produce. The court adopted the figures assessed by the lower court and the Commissioners for mesne profits up to the date of the decree. 3. Compensation for Waste: The plaintiff claimed compensation for waste, alleging that the 1st defendant had destroyed rubber trees, pepper vine, and other plantations. The court found that the 1st defendant, being a trespasser, was not entitled to compensation for improvements. The court assessed the value of the missing improvements at Rs. 1,06,411 for plot L(i)(a) and Rs. 1,00,012 for plot L(i)(b). The court rejected the 1st defendant's argument that there was no evidence to show that the improvements were in existence at the time of the 1st defendant's entry, presuming that the improvements were in existence based on their nature and age. 4. Subsequent Title and Pleading: The 1st defendant acquired a lease of 256.13 acres, including part of the suit property, in 1948. However, this subsequent title was not pleaded, and no issue was joined regarding it. The court refused to consider this title, as it was raised belatedly during arguments, 16 years after the suit's institution. The court dismissed the 1st defendant's application to amend its written statement to plead this title and to disclaim possession of plot L(i)(a). The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for possession against the 1st defendant for the entire suit property, as the 1st defendant's claim to plot L(i)(a) was not supported by the pleadings. Conclusion: The court allowed the appeal, granting the plaintiff a decree against the 1st defendant for possession of the entire suit property, mesne profits, and compensation for waste. The court directed an inquiry by the lower court regarding future mesne profits and awarded costs to the plaintiff. The 1st defendant was ordered to pay the amounts, which would be a first charge on the suit property.
|
