Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Thus, from the view taken by the Madras High Court, in the said judgment, in a suit for partition, Order XX Rule 18 C.P.C is applicable to claim both past and future profits, but not mesne profits. The same view was expressed by the Madras High Court in B.N. Thiayagarajan v. B.N. Sundaavelu15 and A.R. Veerappa Goundar v. Sengoda Goundar16, the Court after referring to certain earlier decisions stated as follows:

(1) Where a preliminary decree awarding possession contains a direction for enquiry into the future profits, that part of the suit relating to the mesne profits continues to be pending AIR 1972 Mad 216 (1975) 1 MLJ 53 MSM,J CRPs.7005, 7017, 7022, 7106, 7107 & 7108 OF 2017 and the decree-holder might move the Court to hold an enquiry and pass a final decree awarding such profits without the necessity of filing an application within the the prescribed period under Article 181 of the Limitation Act. (2) Where a decree awarding possession is silent with regard to enquiry into the future mesne profits and the decree has not completely disposed of the suit which for one reason or another, continues to be pending, there is nothing in the Code prohibiting the decree-holder from applying to the Court during the pendency of such suit for an enquiry into the future mesne profits of the Court from ordering such an enquiry; and (3) Where no relief for mesne profits is claimed in the plaint and the preliminary decree does not provide for such relief, the relief for mesne profits can be claimed even for the first time in application for passing a final decree. But in every case above enumerated the enquiry must be concluded before the final decree is passed, so that the result of the enquiry may be incorporated in the final decree. If, however, the final decree is passed before the enquiry into the mesne profits is completed without the result of the enquiry being incorporated in the final decree itself, there can be no second final decree incorporating the result.