Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2-A. Admittedly, all the amounts due upto December 31, 1972 have been paid by the judgment-debtors to the decree-holders. Since the judgment-debtors did not hand over possession by December 31, 1972, the decree-holders demanded possession on January 1. 1973, and on their refusal to deliver possession, the decree-holders filed an execution application for ejectment of the judgment-debtors from the premises and for damages at the rate of Rs. 500 per day from January 1, 1973 upto the date of the delivery of possession. The decree-holders tentatively paid court-fees on an amount of Rs. 7,500, the damages due for 15 days. The judgment-debtors raised a preliminary objection that, since court-fees had not been paid by the decree-holders on the decree for mesne profits, the execution of the decree was barred by the first part of Section 11 of the Court-fees Act. This objection has been rejected by the Civil Judge.

Where a decree directs an inquiry as to mesne profits from the institution of the suit and a final decree is passed in accordance with the result of such inquiry, the decree shall not be executed until such fee is paid as would have been payable on the amount claimed in execution if a separate suit had been instituted thereof."

4. It is not disputed that the amount of damages for use and occupation decreed under the compromise decree is much larger than the amounts claimed in the various suits and that the difference in the court-fees payable on the amount decreed and the amounts claimed has not been paid by the plaintiff-decree-holders. The judgment-debtors' objection was that the decree was a decree for immovable property and mesne profits and that since the difference between the court-fees actually paid and the court-fees payable had not been paid, no part of the decree could be executed. The contention of the decree-holders, on the other hand, was that the first para of Section 11 only prohibited the execution of the decree for mesne profits and not the execution of the decree for ejectment. On the arguments addressed to me, the following three points arise for decision:

" Mesne profits of property' means those profits which the person in wrongful possession of such property actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received therefrom, together with interest on such profits, but shall not include profits due to improvements made by the person in wrongful possession."

It is, thus, clear that a decree for mesne profits can only be passed in respect of profits received by a person in wrongful possession. I have been taken through the relevant terms of the compromise by the learned counsel for the parties. Under this compromise a decree for ejectment was passed, but time was granted to the judgment-debtor to vacate by December 31, 1972. After a decree for ejectment has been passed the possession of the judgment-debtor cannot be said to be permissive, even if time is granted to vacate. After the passing of the decree for ejectment the possession of the judgment-debtor is wrongful, even though the execution of the decree for ejectment is postponed. It is also true that mesne profits are related to profits actually received from the property an account of wrongful possession or profits which might with ordinary diligence have been received therefrom. But it was open to the parties to quantify the amount instead of leaving it to further enquiry, that is what has been done in the present case. In my opinion, the compromise decree was a decree for immovable property and mesne profits. This disposes of the second point.