1984 (12) TMI 340 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of mesne profits and limitation period applicable.
2. Validity and implications of private treaty and consent order.
3. Applicability of Article 51 versus Article 113 of the Limitation Act.
4. Quantum of mesne profits.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of Mesne Profits and Limitation Period Applicable:
The primary issue was the determination of mesne profits for the period during which the plaintiff was kept out of possession of the property. The trial court limited the mesne profits to a period of three years based on Article 51 of the Indian Limitation Act, which prescribes a three-year limitation period starting from when the profits are received. The plaintiff appealed this decision, arguing that the limitation period should be governed by Article 113, which allows for a suit to be filed within three years from when the right to sue accrues.

2. Validity and Implications of Private Treaty and Consent Order:
The case involved a consent order from a previous litigation where the parties agreed that the defendant, who claimed tenancy rights, would file a suit to establish his claim. During this period, the plaintiff agreed not to disturb the defendant's possession. The court noted that the agreement was silent on the consequences if the defendant failed to diligently pursue the suit. The plaintiff argued that the agreement and the subsequent court order effectively postponed the accrual of the right to sue for mesne profits until the final determination of the tenancy suit.

3. Applicability of Article 51 versus Article 113 of the Limitation Act:
The court evaluated whether Article 51 or Article 113 of the Limitation Act applied. The defendant contended that the suit for mesne profits should have been filed periodically and was barred by limitation under Article 51. However, the court found that the right to sue for mesne profits was contingent upon the outcome of the tenancy suit, aligning with Article 113, which applies when the right to sue accrues after a contingent event. The court concluded that the limitation period began when the Supreme Court dismissed the defendant's tenancy claim.

4. Quantum of Mesne Profits:
Regarding the quantum of mesne profits, the trial court had calculated an annual income of Rs. 90,000 after deductions. The plaintiff accepted this calculation but limited her claim to Rs. 8,00,000. The court allowed the appeal, granting the plaintiff an additional sum of Rs. 8,00,000 with interest from the date of the trial court judgment until realization. The plaintiff was required to pay the necessary court fees on this amount, and the decree would not be executable until the payment of the deficit court fee.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the plaintiff by applying Article 113 of the Limitation Act, which provided a broader timeframe for filing the suit for mesne profits. The judgment emphasized the contingent nature of the right to sue based on the outcome of the tenancy litigation, thus extending the limitation period. The court also addressed the quantum of mesne profits, awarding the plaintiff an additional sum with interest, subject to payment of court fees.