1986 (3) TMI 343 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of the plaintiffs to the disputed property.
2. Accuracy and relevance of the property plans appended to sale deeds.
3. Calculation and entitlement to mesne profits.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement of the Plaintiffs to the Disputed Property:
The plaintiffs filed the suit to direct the defendants to set up a boundary wall and recover the trespassed property, claiming Rs. 5000/- as mesne profits per annum. The Sub Court dismissed the suit, finding no entitlement for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants could only claim rights over 9.75 acres, half of the total 19.50 acres of the estate. The defendants contended they were entitled to 5 acres 95 cents each, as per the sale deeds Exts. A1 and A2.

The court had to determine if the defendants could claim the extent of property mentioned in the sale deeds or only half of the actual extent found on measurement. The court found that the defendants were aware of the actual extent of the property, and the sale deeds indicated that only half of the property was sold. The evidence from P.W. 1 and the plans appended to Exts. A1 and A2 supported this conclusion. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, establishing their right to recover possession of the property.

2. Accuracy and Relevance of the Property Plans Appended to Sale Deeds:
The court emphasized the importance of construing a document as a whole, rather than picking out stray sentences. The recitals in Exts. A1 and A2 indicated that the property was measured and divided into plots A, B, C, and D. The plans appended to these documents showed the pathway and boundary lines, which matched the commissioner's Ext. C4 plan. The court noted that the plans appended to Exts. A1 and A2 were significant and could not be ignored, as they formed part of the documents.

The court referenced several precedents, including Andiappa v. Meyyappan, AIR 1944 PC 80, and Delhi Development Authority v. Durga Chand, AIR 1973 SC 2609, to support the principle that the entire document must be considered to understand the parties' intention. The court concluded that the plans appended to Exts. A1 and A2 accurately represented the property and supported the plaintiffs' claim.

3. Calculation and Entitlement to Mesne Profits:
The plaintiffs claimed mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per annum. P.W. 1 testified that the property had approximately 320 rubber trees, yielding 9 kgms of rubber sheets, with each kgm fetching Rs. 15/- in 1980. This evidence was not challenged in cross-examination. The commissioner's report (Ext. C3) corroborated this, estimating that 10 liters of latex could be obtained from the property, with tapping possible for 200 days a year.

The court found the plaintiffs' claim for mesne profits reasonable and supported by evidence. The court awarded mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per annum from June 1981 (date of trespass) and future mesne profits at the same rate until the date of decree and for three years thereafter or until recovery of possession.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, allowing the plaintiffs to recover the suit property with mesne profits at Rs. 5000/- per annum. The plaintiffs were granted arrears of mesne profits from June 1981 and future mesne profits until recovery of possession or for three years, whichever occurs first.