Telangana High Court
Thomas John vs Peter Dias on 24 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.12 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
1. This memorandum of appeal is filed under Section 96 of CPC
assailing the order passed in I.A.No.23 of 2017 in O.S.No.146 of
1999 dated 17.07.2018 by XII Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC),
City Civil Court at Secunderabad.
2. Appellant is the respondent - defendant and respondent is
the petitioner - plaintiff in I.A.No.23 of 2017 in O.S.NO.146 of
1999.
3.1 Respondent - petitioner has filed I.A.No.23 of 2017 in
O.S.NO.146 of 1999 under Order XX Rule 12 read with Section
151 of CPC praying the Court to appoint an advocate commissioner
to ascertain the quantum of rents prevailing in the plaint schedule
vicinity and pass such other order as the Court may deem fit and
proper. The schedule of the property is ground floor premises
bearing plot No.68 admeasuring plinth area of 1510 sq.ft., in a
building known as 'Marliz' situated at Paiga Colony SP road
Secunderabad, with specific boundaries.
3.2 It is stated in the affidavit in I.A.No.23 of 2017 that the
learned III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court Secunderabad was
BRMR, J
pleased to decreed the suit in O.S.No.146 of 1999 on 06.06.2005
and had directed the appellant - respondent - defendant to vacate
and hand over the plaint schedule property and further held that
the respondent - petitioner - plaintiff is at liberty to file a separate
petition under Order XX Rule 12 of CPC for ascertaining the mesne
profits. Appellant - respondent - defendant has preferred an appeal
against the judgment and decree in O.S.NO.146 of 1999 dated
06.06.2005 vide A.S.No.128 of 2005, which came to be dismissed
on 28.08.2009 by the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil
Court, Hyderabad.
3.3 In paragraph No.19 of the judgment in A.S.NO.128 of 2005,
the appellate Court opined that the respondent - petitioner -
plaintiff is at liberty to file a separate petition for ascertainment of
mesne profits. Appellant - respondent - defendant handed over the
keys of the plaint schedule property to the respondent - petitioner
- plaintiff on 30.11.2009. Plaint schedule property is situated at SP
road, Secunderabad, which is located in the heart of the
commercial locality and would easily fetch rent of Rs.350/- per
day. The appellant - respondent - defendant has to pay mesne
profits from 01.04.1999 till 30.11.2009 for 3897 days and prayed
to appoint an advocate commissioner to ascertain the quantum of
rents prevailing in the vicinity of the plaint schedule property.
BRMR, J
4. Appellant - respondent - defendant has filed his counter and
contended that the appeal filed by him was dismissed on
28.08.2009 confirming the trial Court judgment dated 06.06.2005,
thereafter he vacated the plaint schedule property and handed over
the keys to the respondent - petitioner - plaintiff without allowing
him to file EP which shows his intension as regards his landlord.
I.A.No.23 of 2017 is filed claiming that an opportunity was given to
the respondent - petitioner - plaintiff to file an application under
Order XX Rule 12 of CPC is not true and the respondent -
petitioner - plaintiff cannot claim any mesne profits even otherwise
alternatively. The claim is too high, not comparable and not
retainable to any particular premises of that area with that of the
facilities that were given. The claim of the respondent is too
preposterous and cannot be granted, prayed to dismiss the
application.
5. Respondent - petitioner - plaintiff is examined as PW1, also
examined PW2 - Rahemjigar Ali and got marked Ex.P1 - bunch of
receipts (11 Nos). Appellant - respondent - defendant is examined
as RW1 and got marked Exs.R1 to R9.
6. The learned Trial Court after going through the evidence
adduced by the parties and the documents thereon has allowed
I.A.No.23 of 2017 vide order dated 17.07.2018 quantifying mesne
BRMR, J
profits at the rate of Rs.10,500/- per month from April, 1999
onwards with periodic enhancement for every two years at the rate
of Rs.2,000/-, which is impugned in the present appeal.
7.1 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned
Judge has not properly appreciated the facts of the case in proper
perspective and erred in allowing the application filed by the
respondent - petitioner - plaintiff, did not examine the contents of
the affidavit filed in support of the relief claimed and the relief
sought in the petition is to appoint an advocate commissioner to
ascertain the quantum of rents prevailing in the vicinity of the suit
schedule property. The learned Judge did not consider the
proposition of law as cited across the bar and therefore entire
findings are perverse, illegal and contrary to the record.
7.2 Learned Judge ought to have seen that the appellant -
respondent - defendant has brought Exs.R1 to R9 to substantiate
the case which has not been appreciated. Learned Judge did not
give sound reasons in granting the relief and the quantifying the
mesne profits is not based on evidence in as much as the affidavit
pleaded only states that the property can fetch Rs.350/- per day.
Learned Judge without any pleading, without any prayer and
without any evidence, gave an escalation or enhancement of
Rs.2,000/- for every two years is based on no evidence. Counsel to
BRMR, J
substantiate his contentions has relied on the decisions in the
cases of (i) Trojan and Company Vs. RM.N.N.Nagappa Chettiar 1 (ii)
Akella Lalitha Vs. Konda Hanumantha Rao and Another 2 (iii)
Bhatharaju Shankaraiah, Hyderabad and Others Vs. Secretary,
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Delhi 3 (iv) Sarvinder
Singh and another Vs. Vipul Tandon 4 and (v) Ramakka Vs. V.
Nagesam 5.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent - petitioner - plaintiff
submits that the mesne profits awarded by the Trial Court at the
rate of Rs.10,500/- is to be modified to Rs.12,000/- per month and
also contended that the filing of petition to ascertain the mesne
profits is not a requirement in law but a mere remainder to the
Trial Court and the learned Trial Court has taken judicial notice of
the fact that the petition schedule property is situated in the prime
locality of SP road Secunderabad. The Hyper technical objection
taken by the appellant - respondent - defendant for the first time is
without any pleadings and contrary to law. In support of his
contentions he relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) Mohd.
Abdul Qasim and Others Vs. District Collector, Warangal and
(1953) 1 SCC 456
2022 SCC OnLine SC 928
2024 SCC OnLine TS 4120
CS(OS) 2453/2015 & I.A.16871/2015, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, dated 08.07.2025
AIR 1925 MAD 145
BRMR, J
others 6, (ii) G.Subrahmanyam (died) by LRs. Vs. G.Leela and
others 7, (iii) Gopalakrishna Pillai and Others Vs. Meenakshi Ayal
and Others 8, (iv) Reddi China Sattemma Vs. H.Suryanarayana
(died) by L.Rs 9, (v) Rattan Arya and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
and another 10, (vi) Saradamani Kandappan Vs. S.Rajalakshmi and
Others 11, (vii) Ahmedsaheb (dead) by LRs and others Vs. Sayed
Ismail 12, (viii) Magunta Kota Reddy (died) and others Vs. Pothula
Chendrasekhara Reddy 13, (ix) Karaka Varaqhalamma and another
Vs. Velagala Simhachalam and others 14 (x) Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Limited Vs. Mohanjit Singh (Deceased) through legal
heirs 15.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent - petitioner - plaintiff
has filed his written arguments.
10. Heard learned counsel on record and perused the material.
11. Now the points for consideration are:
i) Whether the learned Trial Court without appointing an
advocate commissioner to ascertain the quantum of rents
I.A.No.1 of 2018 and A.S.No.145 of 1994, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad, dated
20.07.2018
2011 SC OnLine AP 411 = 2011 (6) ALD 223
1966 SCC OnLine SC 224 = AIR 1967 SC 155
1983 Supreme (AP) 498
(1986) 3 SCC 385
(2011) 12 SCC 18
(2012) 8 SCC 516
1961 SCC OnLine AP 126 = AIR 1963 AP 42
14 2010 SCC OnLine AP 225 = 2010 (3) ALD 725
2019 SCC OnLine Del 9419 = (2019) 263 DLT 192
BRMR, J
prevailing in respect to the suit schedule property can go
ahead to dispose of the application basing on the evidence.
ii) whether the respondent - petitioner - plaintiff is entitled for
modification of the order passed by the learned Trial Court in
I.A.No.23 of 2017 in O.S.No.146 of 1999, dated 17.07.2018
in absence of any appeal to that effect.
iii) Whether the order passed by the learned Trial Court in
I.A.No.23 of 2017 in O.S.No.146 of 1999 dated 17.07.2018
suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it requires
interference of this Court.
12. It is apt to refer Order XX Rule 12 of CPC, which reads as
under:
12.Decree for possession and mense profits:- (1) Where a suit is for
the recovery of possession of immovable property and for rent or
mesne profits, the Court may pass a decree-
(a) for the possession of the property;
(b) for the rents which have accrued on the property during the
period prior to the institution of th suit or directing an inquiry as to
such rent;
(ba) for the mense profits or directing an inquiry as to such mesne
profits;
(c) directing an inquiry as to rent or mesne profits from the
institution of the suit until,-
(i)the delivery of possession to the decree-holder,
(ii) the relinquishment of possession by the judgment - debtor with
notice to the decree - holder through the Court, or
BRMR, J
(iii) the expiration of three years from the date of the decree,
whichever event first occurs
(2) Where an enquiry is directed under clause (b) or clause (c), a final
decree in respect of the rent or mesne profits shall be passed in
accordance with the result of such inquiry.
13. The admitted facts of the case are that the schedule property
was let out on 02.03.1998 and the quantum of rent fixed is at the
rate of Rs.8,000/- per month and the appellant - respondent -
defendant has vacated the premises on 30.11.2009. Suit schedule
property is at Paigah colony, SP road, Secunderabad and the
extent is 1510 sq.fts.
14.1 Admittedly suit (O.S.No.146 of 1999) is filed by the
respondent - petitioner - plaintiff for eviction and mesne profits.
14.2 The learned Trial Court in O.S.No.146 of 1999 has framed
issue No.3 i.e., whether the plaintiff is entitled to the mesne profits
claimed in the suit?
14.3 Eviction is ordered by the learned Trial Court in O.S.No.146
of 1999 vide judgment and decree dated 06.06.2005 and in respect
of mesne profits the observation of the learned trial Court is as
under:
"Issue No.3: The subject matter of the suit is with regard to the
prevailing market rate of rent in the suit locality. It is stated by the
plaintiff that the suit schedule property is situated in the heart of the
business area at Secunderabad and can easily fetch a sum of
BRMR, J
Rs.350/- per day and as such the plaintiff is entitled for mesne
profits @ Rs. 350/- per day ever since from 1.4.99.
The contention put forward on behalf of the defendant is that even
the termination notice Ex.Al is valid and binding and it must be
deemed to have void by the plaintiff because he accepted the rents
from 1.4.99 without any protest and therefore, the action on the part
of the plaintiff in receiving the rents directly establishes, as there is
no proper termination or the termination was not acted upon even by
the plaintiff. For the reasons already discussed in previous issues, it
must be held that the rental agreement Ex.A4 stood validly
terminated by virtue of termination notice Ex.A1, and from 1.4.99,
onwards, defendant was tenant holding over, liable to pay damages
for the use and occupation, or mesne profits, to the plaintiff till
ejectment. Except the sole evidence of the plaintiff, there is no
evidence placed to establish that the area would easily fetch a sum of
Rs. 350/- per day. In the absence of any convincing and acceptable
evidence on this aspect at this stage, the court cannot decide the
mesne profits entitled by the plaintiff from the defendant for his use
and occupation from 1.4.99. Therefore, the plaintiff is at liberty to file
a separate petition under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC for ascertaining
mesne profits."
14.4 Appellate Court in A.S.No.128 of 2005 has also granted
liberty to the plaintiff (respondent herein) to file an application for
determining mesne profits.
15. The mesne profits quantified by the trial Court in I.A.NO.23
of 2017 dated 17.07.2018 is as under:
1. That the petition of the petitioner be and the same is hereby allowed
2. That the quantifying mesne profits @ Rs.10,500/- per month from the
month of April 1999 on wards till November 2009 with periodic
enhancement for every two years @ Rs.2,000/- as follows:
BRMR, J
From April, 1999 till March, 2001 Rs.10,500/- p.m
From April, 2001 till March, 2003 Rs.12,500/- p.m
From April, 2003 till March, 2005 Rs.14,500/- p.m
From April, 2005 till March, 2007 Rs.16,500/- p.m
From April, 2007 till March, 2009 Rs.18,500/- p.m
From April, 2009 till November 2009 Rs.20,500/- p.m.
16. Ex.A4 is the lease agreement dated 02.03.1998 marked in
O.S.No.146 of 1999. In respect of enhancement of rent of the
leased property, condition No.18 is as under:
"18. The LESSEE also agrees to an increment in the Rent and Hire
charges at the rate of 10% (Ten percent only) on the total rent
amount at every lease renewal of ELEVEN months".
17.1 The evidence of PW1 (respondent-petitioner-plaintiff) is that
he is claiming mesne profits at the rate of Rs.350/- per day
commencing from 01.04.1999 till 30.11.2009 i.e., for 3987 days
amounting Rs.13,95,450/- and the area under occupation of the
appellant herein - respondent - defendant was 1510 sq.ft at Paigah
Colony, Secunderabad.
17.2 In his cross examination he stated that after disposal of the
appeal, appellant - respondent - defendant handed over the keys
on 30.11.2009 and further he has not filed any document to show
that the petition schedule property fetches Rs.350/- per day from
the year 1990. Building was constructed in the year 1984 and
apart from the appellant - respondent - defendant there were two
BRMR, J
more tenants. One portion of the building is vacant on the first
floor and the ground floor is occupied by another tenant and he is
paying Rs.21,000/- per month. He has not specifically mentioned
in Ex.A1 - legal notice dated 19.03.1999 that the appellant-
respondent-defendant is liable to pay Rs.350/- per day towards
mesne profits. By the date of vacating the schedule property
appellant - respondent - defendant was paying monthly rent of
Rs.8,000/-.
17.3 He further stated in his cross examination that appellant -
respondent - defendant used to run courier office in the suit
schedule premises and also mentioned about the floods in the year
2000. Schedule property was provided with drinking water,
borewell, toilets and parking place and the buildings in the vicinity
are old. His building consists of one side nalla, two sides road and
other side is of the neighbours. Other tenants residing other than
the appellant - respondent - defendant in the suit schedule
premises were paying Rs.700/- per day, another tenant is paying
Rs.500/- per day for half space in the building and he has not
enquired with other tenants of neighbouring buildings. PW1 denied
the suggestion that the rent paid by the appellant - respondent -
defendant at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month on the date of
vacating the portion is reasonable and fair rent and also denied the
BRMR, J
suggestion that the claim made by him is unreasonable, unjust
and not in consonance with the prevailing rents.
18.1 PW2-Raheem Jigar Ali deposed that he is doing bakery
business at plot No.68, Paigah colony, SP road, Secunderabad, the
area under his occupation is 1510 sq.ft. and he is paying rent of
Rs.22,050/- exclusive of electricity and water charges. TDS is
deducted upon the rent paid, he has receipts showing the
payments of rents to the landlords and his business is assessed to
CST, APGST vide Pin No.28155098186 approximately rent per sq.ft
is Rs.20/- to 25/- in the vicinity of petition schedule premises and
got marked Ex.P1(bunch of receipts 11 in number).
18.2 In his cross examination he stated that there is no registered
lease agreement between him and his landlord. Witness adds that
there is an unregistered lease agreement between him and his
landlord, he has record to show that the rent is Rs.22,050/- per
month and he is paying rents to landlord through cheques. PW2
denied the suggestion that he is not a tenant of the respondent -
petitioner - plaintiff, he is not paying such rents and giving false
evidence. He also denied the suggestion that rent per sq.ft is only
Rs.5/- in the vicinity of the suit schedule property.
19. Ex.P1 are the bunch of receipts marked through PW2 which
shows the payments made to the respondent - petitioner - plaintiff
BRMR, J
by United Bakers for the months of April 2012 to December 2012
through cheques, the amount shown is Rs.21,000/-. The rental
receipts for the month of January 2013 to April 2013 is also paid
through cheques by PW2 and the rent shown therein is
Rs.19,845/-
20. The evidence of the appellant - respondent - defendant as
RW1 is the replica of his counter. In his cross examination he
stated that after vacating the premises one United Bakers has
taken the same on lease and he did not bothered to verify the rents
paid. He verified plot No.23 where the prevailing rent in the ground
floor is Rs.12,000/- for 1600 sq.ft and he did not file any document
to substantiate the same. He verified first floor of the said premises
and one portion is given on rent for Rs.6,000/-, he cannot say the
area in occupation of the said premises and the appeal preferred by
him against the eviction order was dismissed. He has not preferred
any appeal against the observations made for ascertainment of
mesne profits in the appeal and he is not aware of the receipts
issued by PW1 [respondent - petitioner - plaintiff] under Ex.P1 to
the present tenant (PW2). He is not aware that the suit premises
locality is fetching rent in between Rs.300/- to Rs.350/- per sq.ft
and the area under the occupation was 1500 sq.ft. He has not filed
any document to show that the rent paid by him is in accordance
with the prevailing rents in the area of the premises. He denied the
BRMR, J
suggestion that Exs.R1 to R9 do not bear for ascertaining the
mesne profits.
21.1 Ex.R1 is the letter dated 24.08.2000 addressed to the Station
House Officer, Begumpet Police Station, Begumpet with regard to
damages to properties and stocks due to flood and requested to
register the complaint of losses and take up necessary official
initiatives to extend support.
21.2 Ex.R2 is another letter dated 13.09.2000 addressed by the
appellant-respondent-defendant to the Mandal Revenue Officer,
Secunderabad Region, Secunderabad and requested to extend
cooperation by giving a certificate to enable him to show to his
customers and other authorities concerned due to recent heavy
rains and floods.
21.3 Ex.R3 is the certificate issued by MRO Secunderabad dated
27.09.2000 stating that M/s. Professional Couriers Rasoolpura is
effected and inundated due to heavy rains and floods from
23.08.2000 to 24.08.2000.
21.4 Ex.R4 is the certificate issued by Inspector of Police,
Begumpet PS dated 15.09.2000, which states that in the recent
floods, the localities in Begumpet PS limits including Paigah colony
area was inundated with flood water and caused heavy damages to
the public property.
BRMR, J
21.5 Exs.R5 and R7 are the notices got issued by the appellant -
respondent - defendant to the respondent - petitioner - plaintiff
dated 16.09.2020 for repairing the premises in view of the damages
caused due to floods. Ex.R6 is the cheque for Rs.8,000/- towards
rent for the month of September 2000. Ex.R8 is the postal receipt
and Ex.R9 is the postal acknowledgement card.
22. Respondent - petitioner - plaintiff in pursuance of the order
in I.A.No.23 of 2017 dated 17.07.2018 valued the mesne profits at
Rs.10,40,000/- and accordingly Court fee of Rs.12,826/- is paid
vide challan No.62070 dated 14.08.2018 for preparation of the
final decree.
POINT NO.1:
23. Respondent - petitioner - plaintiff has also prayed to pass
such other order/orders as the Court deems fit and proper in
I.A.No.23 of 2017.
24.1 It is well settled that the decision of a case cannot be based
on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case
pleaded that has to be found. Without an amendment of the plaint,
the court was not entitled to grant the relief not asked for and no
prayer was ever made to amend the plaint so as to incorporate in it
an alternative case (See: Trojan1).
BRMR, J
24.2 It is settled law that relief not found on pleadings should not
be granted (See: Akella Lalitha), which is followed in Bhatharaju
Shankaraiah.
25. The learned trial Court observed in paragraph No.5 of its
order that 'At the stage of enquiry, petitioner - plaintiff [respondent
herein] did not get commissioner report conducting local enquiry,
but has led evidence as PW1 and examined PW2 respectively. PW2
was summoned by the Court. The appellant - respondent -
defendant was examined as RW1". The learned Trial Court thought
it fit to dispose of the application for mesne profits basing on the
evidence of PW1, PW2 with that of the evidence of RW1 coupled
with of Exs.P1, R1 to R9 instead of appointing an advocate
commissioner and fixed the quantum of mesne profits by
exercising its discretion.
26. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant
as stated supra in paragraph Nos.24.1 and 24.2 are
distinguishable from the facts of the present case and thus the
ratio of those cases would not apply in the present case in view of
the fact that the Trial Court has passed orders basing on the
evidence adduced by the parties and has invoked other part of the
prayer of the petition i.e., pass such other order or orders as the
BRMR, J
Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper" by exercising its discretion.
Hence point No.1 is answered against the appellant.
POINT NO.2:
27. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the order
passed by the learned Trial Court can be modified and enhance the
mesne profits to Rs.12,000/- instead of Rs.10,500/-.
28. In Mohd. Abdul Qasim6 the submission of the learned
Advocate General appearing for the respondent therein is that it
was not possible for the State to file an appeal against a finding on
one of the issues and appeal lies only against a 'decree' but not
against a finding and Order XLI Rule 33 CPC enables the Appellate
Court to decide any question between the parties.
29. The Appellate Court should have the fullest power to do
complete justice between the parties under Order XLI Rule 33 of
CPC. The rule postulates that the Appellate Court has the power to
pass a decree, and make an order which ought to have been
passed or made as the case may require, even if the parties have
not filed any appeal or objection. Appellate Court can always
consider the subsequent events as to facts and law and grant relief
[See:G.Subrahmanyam].
BRMR, J
30. It is the case of the respondent - petitioner - plaintiff in the
plaint itself that the schedule property would easily fetch a sum of
Rs.350/- per day and he is entitled to claim the same from
01.04.1999. The learned Trial Court has taken Rs.350/- per day
and calculated for 30 days and arrived at Rs.10,500/- per month
as rent. The admitted rent as on the date of commencement of the
lease [01.05.1998] is Rs.8,000/-. Though the Trial Court has
quantified the mesne profits at the rate of one and half times of
admitted rent i.e., Rs.8,000/- + Rs.4,000/- = Rs.12,000/-,
exercised its discretion and arrived at an amount of Rs.10,500/-
per month.
31. Though PW2 deposed that he is paying rent of Rs.22,050/-
per month but his chief examination is silent when he has
occupied the property on lease but the rental receipts are
pertaining to 2012 and 2013 [Ex.P1 - bunch of receipts 11 in
number] and admittedly the appellant - respondent - defendant
has vacated the premises on 30.11.2009 but whereas the rental
receipts under Ex.P1 are from 2012 and 2013.
32. The learned Trial Court has fixed the mesne profits at the
rate of 350/- per day as stated in the plaint for 30 days and arrived
at Rs.10,500/-, rightly exercised its discretion and reasonably
enhanced the mesne profits amount for every two years at the rate
BRMR, J
of Rs.2,000/- as the appellant - respondent - defendant was in
unlawful possession of the suit property.
33. This Court is of the view that the respondent - petitioner -
plaintiff is not entitled for modification of the order in view of the
reasons above as the learned Trial Court has property exercised its
discretion in fixing the mesne profits. Hence point No.2 is
answered against the respondent - petitioner - plaintiff.
POINT NO.3
34. Now I have to see whether the learned Trial Court has passed
a reasoned order in quantifying the mesne profits based on the
evidence adduced by the parties.
35. Mere guess work cannot be used for ascertaining the rent.
This Court cannot make a guess work in thin air. Guess work
cannot take the form of evidence. Coming to a figure which might
be the rent of the area on its own without any material is not
permissible in law. Thus, in the absence of any evidence, either
oral or documentary, this Court is not in a position to calculate
any mesne profits (See: Sarvinder Singh).
36. In a suit for mesne profits the burden is always held to be on
the plaintiff to prove the amount (See: Ramakka).
BRMR, J
37. The plaintiff has no cause of action on the date of the
institution of the suit, and it is not possible for him to plead this
cause of action or to value it or to pay court - fees thereon at the
time of the institution of the suit [See: Gopalakrishna Pillai].
38. "It is thus well settled position of law that when a
preliminary decree has been passed and a direction therein has
been given to ascertain mesne profits, it is not incumbent for the
decree-holder to file an application to ascertain mesne profits.
When he files an application, it is only a reminder to the Court to
take steps to pass final decree and ascertainment of mesne profits
is one such step in that direction." (See: Reddy China Sattemma).
and followed in Karaka Varaqhalamma.
39. We are entitled to take judicial notice of the enormous
multifold increase of rents through-out the country, particularly in
urban areas. It is common knowledge today that the
accommodation which one could have possibly got for Rs.400 per
month in 1973 will today cost at least five times more....." (See:
Rattan Arya (3 Judge Bench))
40.1 The third quarter of the twentieth century saw a very slow
but steady increase in prices. But a drastic change occurred from
the beginning of the last quarter of the twentieth century. There
has been a galloping inflation and prices of immovable properties
BRMR, J
have increased steeply, by leaps and bounds. Market values of
properties are no longer stable or steady. We can take judicial
notice of the comparative purchase power of a rupee in the year
1975 and now, as also the steep increase in the value of the
immovable properties between then and now. It is no exaggeration
to say that properties in cities, worth a lakh or so in or about 1975
to 1980, may cost a crore or more now.
40.2 This Court held that the said process of determination under
the Act, which was reasonable when the law was made, became
arbitrary and unreasonable in view of constant escalation of prices
due to inflation and corresponding rise (sic fall) in money value
with the passage of time." [See: Saradamani Kandappan].
41. It is needless to emphasise that admission of a party in the
proceedings either in the pleadings or oral is the best evidence and
the same does not need any further corroboration [See:
Ahmedsaheb].
42. The plaintiff in this case had no special means of knowing
the exact income from the lands during the relevant period and he
was, therefore, not estopped from claiming a larger sum as mesne
profits than what was claimed in his plaint [See: Magunta Kota
Reddy].
BRMR, J
43. Courts are entitled to take judicial notice of the prevalent
market rents while awarding mesne profits even where
documentary evidence is not lead and that the calculation of
mesne profits involves some amount of guess work [See: Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Ltd].
44.1 In Reddi China Sattemma and Karaka Varaqhalamma it is
held that it is not incumbent for the decree holder to file an
application to ascertain mesne profits, when he files an application
it is only a remainder to the Court to take steps to pass final decree
and ascertainment of mesne profits is one such step in that
direction. The learned Trial Court thought it fit to dispose of the
application for mesne profits basing on the evidence instead of
appointing an advocate commissioner to ascertain the mesne
profits.
44.2. The learned Trial Court has taken judicial notice while fixing
the quantum of mesne profits prevailing in the vicinity of S.P.Road,
Secunderabad. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the
respondent in Rattan Arya, Saradamani Kandappan, Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Limited, are applicable to the case on hand.
44.3. I have gone through the decision cited by the learned counsel
for the appellant in Sarvinder Singh, I find that they are
distinguishable from the facts of the present case and thus the
BRMR, J
ratio of the case would not apply in the present case. Respondent -
petitioner has discharged his burden while ascertaining the mesne
profits.
45. This Court is of the view that the learned Trial Court has
rightly passed the order basing on the evidence adduced by the
parties instead of appointing an advocate commissioner. The
learned Trial Court has rightly taken into consideration that the
periodic enhancement of the mesne profits for every two years at
the rate of Rs.2,000/- appears to be reasonable as the schedule
property is in prime locality of Paigh Colony, SP Road,
Secunderabad.
46. The respondent - petitioner - plaintiff has already filed
execution petition vide E.P.No.4 of 2018 in the month of October
2018 after passing of the order in I.A.No.23 of 2017 in O.S.No.146
of 1999 dated 17.07.2018 for issuing warrant of arrest and
detention of the appellant - respondent - defendant in civil prison
for non payment of balance of Rs.8,50,000/-.
47. Appellant - respondent - defendant has not made out any
case to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Trial Court
in I.A.No.23 of 2017 in O.S.No.146 of 1999 dated 17.07.2018.
48. This Court is of the view that the reasoning of the learned
Trial Court is based on the evidence adduced by the parties and
BRMR, J
the enhancement of Rs.2,000/- for every two years is reasonable.
In view of the reasons above, there are no merits in the appeal and
the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
49. Appeal is dismissed without costs.
Interim orders granted if any shall stand vacated.
Miscellaneous application/s stands closed.
______________________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J
24.11.2025
Dua
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
BRMR, J
CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.12 of 2019
24.11.2025
Dua
