2022 (9) TMI 1119 - SC - Indian Laws

Decree for recovery of possession in respect of plot - It is alleged that the said adjacent plot of land is also in the unauthorised occupation of the Appellant - mesne profit - HELD THAT - The existence of a cause of action and/or, in other words, the existence of circumstances giving cause for initiation of action is imperative for initiation of a suit. A suit can only be entertained when the cause of action has arisen and not otherwise. Any future event does not constitute cause of action. The cause of action is the fact or bundle of facts which would be necessary for the plaintiff to plead and prove, in order to get a judgment of the Court in his favour. The cause of action is the expiry of the lease of the suit property, that is Plot No.4/4 and refusal of the Appellant to vacate the suit property in spite of request, and the consequential liability of the Appellant to the Respondent, to pay damages for wrongful occupation and/or mesne profits for wrongful occupation - There can be no doubt that the verdict of the Trial Court has assumed finality in respect of Plot No. 4/4. The Respondent is entitled to possession of Plot No. 4/4. The Respondent is also entitled to mesne profits at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month from 1st March 2006, as directed by the High Court to make over, till the date on which the Appellant offered possession of Plot No. 4/4 to the Respondent. Order 7 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure mandates that where the subject matter of the suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identify it, and in case such property can be identified by boundaries or numbers in a record of settlement or survey, the plaint shall specify such boundaries or numbers - There could be no doubt that a decree should not to the extent practicable be allowed to be defeated. At the same time, a decree can only be executed in respect of the suit property if the suit property is easily identifiable. The extent of the suit property would have to be determined by the Executing Court, as a question relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. This Court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that part of the land belongs to the Delhi Government for which Appellant is paying Revenue to the Delhi Government - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of possession and entitlement to mesne profits for Plot No. 4/4.
2. Identification and demarcation of Plot No. 4/4 and Plot No. 4/5.
3. Execution of the decree and restoration of possession.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Possession and Entitlement to Mesne Profits for Plot No. 4/4:
The Appellant, a Government Company, operated two retail outlets on Plot No. 4/4 and Plot No. 4/5. The Respondent inherited Plot No. 4/4 and filed a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits after the lease expired in June 2003. The Trial Court decreed in favor of the Respondent, directing the Appellant to vacate Plot No. 4/4 and pay mesne profits from July 2003. The High Court modified this, stating mesne profits were payable from 1st March 2006, post the termination notice. The Supreme Court upheld the Respondent's entitlement to mesne profits from 1st March 2006 till the Appellant relinquishes possession of Plot No. 4/4.

2. Identification and Demarcation of Plot No. 4/4 and Plot No. 4/5:
The Respondent claimed possession of Plot No. 4/5, which was not part of the suit property and belonged to other legal heirs and the Delhi Government. The Appellant argued the suit property was not clearly identified, and a Local Commissioner should be appointed to demarcate Plot No. 4/4. The Supreme Court agreed, emphasizing the need for precise identification of the suit property as mandated by Order 7 Rule 3 and Order 20 Rule 3 of the CPC. The Court directed the Executing Court to appoint a Revenue Officer to demarcate Plot No. 4/4 and ensure any excess land taken, including Plot No. 4/5, is restored to the Appellant.

3. Execution of the Decree and Restoration of Possession:
The Appellant contended the Respondent had wrongfully taken possession of Plot No. 4/5. The Supreme Court noted that the decree was only executable against Plot No. 4/4. The Executing Court was tasked with demarcating Plot No. 4/4 and handing it over to the Respondent while restoring any excess land taken to the Appellant. The Court also directed fresh computation of mesne profits based on the Trial Court's decree as modified by the High Court.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned judgment and directing the Executing Court to demarcate and hand over Plot No. 4/4 to the Respondent. Any excess land taken, including Plot No. 4/5, must be restored to the Appellant. Mesne profits are to be computed afresh from 1st March 2006 till the Appellant relinquishes possession of Plot No. 4/4.