The Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justice M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna opined that the High Court mechanically reduced the mesne profits to 50%. Even if the valuer’s report was for commercial use/commercial property, in that case also, the mesne profits could not have been reduced by 50%.
Facts
The appellant herein instituted four different suits against the respective respondents for recovery of possession of the disputed suit property. It was the case on behalf of the original plaintiff that the respondents were in possession of four different portions of her residential house as licensee and that she was entitled for restoration of possession as well as mesne profits on termination of their licence. All the four suits came to be decreed by the learned trial Court.
Procedural History
Feeling dissatisfied, the respondents herein (original defendants) preferred appeals before the first appellate court. They also filed applications to stay the decree passed by the learned trial Court, during the pendency of the first appeals. While staying the execution of the decree, the first appellate court directed the respondents to pay mesne profits at different rates. The appellant preferred writ petitions before the High Court to enhance the mesne profits. The respondents preferred writ petitions challenging the amount of mesne profits determined by the first appellate court. The High Court allowed in part the writ petitions preferred by the respondents and reduced the mesne profits. Feeling aggrieved, the legal representative of judgment creditor – original plaintiff preferred the present appeals.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that:
“The High Court has not at all considered the market rate as per the current potential of the suit property. The High Court has mechanically reduced the mesne profits to 50%. Even if the valuer’s report was for commercial use/commercial property, in that case also, the mesne profits could not have been reduced by 50%.”
Judgment
The impugned order passed by the High Court was modified that in the case of Vasudev Mangal (Respondent no.1), instead of mesne profits at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month, the respondent – original appellant shall pay mesne profits at the rate of Rs.7,500/- per month; in the case of Mohan Lal Mangal (Respondent no.2), instead of mesne profits at the rate of Rs.3,300/- per month, the respondent – original appellant shall pay mesne profits at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per month; in the case of Chimman Lal @ Pradeep Kumar through Lrs. (Respondent no.3), instead of mesne profits at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month, the respondents – original appellants shall pay mesne profits at the rate of Rs.2,250/- per month and in the case of Shyam Lal Mangal through Lrs. (Respondent no.4), instead of mesne profits at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month, the respondent – original appellant shall pay mesne profits at the rate of Rs.5,500/- per month. The rest of the order passed by the learned first appellate court was ordered to be maintained. The appeals before the first appellate court were ordered to be expedited.
Case Name: Anar Devi (D) through LR vs Vasudev Mangal Etc. Etc.
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1852-1859 OF 2022
Bench: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice B.V. Nagarathna
Decided on: 10th March 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
