Inquiry About Mesne Profits Continuation Of Original Suit; Application For Such Inquiry Not Barred By Limitation: Supreme Court
In a recent case, the Supreme Court permitted the decree-holder to file an application regarding the determination of mesne profits after almost 26 years of passing the decree. The Court said that filing an application as a reminder to the court to complete the inquiry into the determination of mesne profit cannot be said to be filing a fresh suit but a continuation of the suit and cannot...
In a recent case, the Supreme Court permitted the decree-holder to file an application regarding the determination of mesne profits after almost 26 years of passing the decree.
The Court said that filing an application as a reminder to the court to complete the inquiry into the determination of mesne profit cannot be said to be filing a fresh suit but a continuation of the suit and cannot be barred by limitation.
“Now, such an inquiry is nothing but a continuation of the suit and is in the nature of preparation of the final decree and as such, it cannot be said that any application moved as a reminder for completing the inquiry is barred by limitation or is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay or laches.”, the bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice R. Mahadevan said.
In the present case, the trial court while passing the decree in the year 1973 for recovery of possession and correction of mutation entries had directed holding of an inquiry regarding future mesne profits of the said suit lands from the date of the suit.
However, the decree-holder/respondent filed an application, purported to be under Section 141 C.P.C. or under Order XX Rule 12 C.P.C, in 2014 for the determination of the mesne profits as directed by the judgment, order, and decree delivered in 1973.
Protesting the degree-holders application, the Appellant contended that the application allegedly moved by the respondents for an inquiry for mesne profits is like a second execution and since, it has been filed decades after the decree has attained finality, it is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
Opposing the Appellant's contention, the respondent submitted that such is not like a second execution or in the form of a fresh suit or a plaint, rather it is only a reminder to the Court to complete the process of inquiry about the determination of mesne profits as has been directed by the Court of first instance vide judgment and order dated 12.07.1973.
Rejecting the Appellant's contention, the Court said that filing of a reminder application by the respondent cannot be considered as a fresh suit or a second execution to declare such application as barred by limitation.
The Court reasoned that the direction to hold a preliminary inquiry for determination of mesne profits of the suit property cannot be understood as a final decree which had finally decided the rights and liabilities of the parties. In other words, a decree passed about the determination of the mesne profit cannot be given the color of final decree but a preliminary decree where the party can well approach the court for preparation of a final decree.
In this regard, the Court drew reference to the case of Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan and Anr. Vs. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan and Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 549 where the Court while highlighting the distinction between the preliminary decree and final decree held that there's no need to file a separate application for preparation of the final decree once the preliminary decree was drawn up. Also, the Court said that the proceedings for final decree can be initiated at any point in time as there is no limitation for initiation of such proceedings.
“The aforesaid analogy with regard to the preparation of the final decree pursuant to the preliminary decree for partition can very well be applied to the cases where a decree is passed with a direction to hold an inquiry with regard to determination of mesne profits.”, the Court observed.
Moreover, the Court rejected the Appellant's contention that where no limitation was provided than the steps ought to be taken for initiation of proceedings within a reasonable time and not decades later. Noting that “the two Courts below having held that the proceedings are not barred by limitation and that actually the proceedings are not in the nature of a fresh proceedings, rather than a continuation of the old suit in the form of a preparation of the final decree”, therefore the Court didn't found fault with the said decisions.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the petitioners were set at liberty to participate in the inquiry before the Trial Court in so far as the determination of mesne profits is concerned.
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. C. Nageswara Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vikram Hegde, AOR Mr. Chitwan Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ameet Deshpande, Sr. Adv. Mr. Akshat Shrivastava, AOR Mr. Satvic Mathur, Adv.
Case Title: CHOUDAPPA & ANR. VERSUS CHOUDAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. & ORS., SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3056 OF 2023
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 671