Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (1.25 seconds)
Documents citing B. Ram Karan, Singh (Dead) And Ors. vs Nakchhad Ahir And Ors. on 6 May, 1931

Sardar Balbir Singh vs Atma Ram Srivastava on 30 November, 1976

39. Lastly, coming to the case of B. Ram Karan v. Nakchhad, (AIR 1931 All 429) in that case the plaintiffs instituted a suit lor possession of immovable property in 1925 treating the defendants as trespassers. In the plaint they claimed mesne profits only upto the date of institution of the suit. The suit was decreed and possession was obtained in April, 1927, Thereafter they brought another suit for recovery of mesne profits from 24th August, 1925, the date of institution of the first suit till 1st April, 1927, the date on which they had obtained possession. It was pleaded in defence that the claim was barred by Order 2, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code. The Court held that the second suit was not barred by Order 2, Rule 2. There is a preponderance of authority in favour of the view that the causes of action for recovery of possession of immovable property and for future mesne profits i.e., mesne profits accruing due after institution of the first suit for possession, are distinct and separate and having held so it was not necessary for the court of decide whether the causes of action for recovery of possession of immovable property and for mesne profits are always distinct having regard to the terms of Order 2, Rule 4. But still Sulaiman, Ag. C. J., who decided the case, made certain observations in passing which are, to my mind, in the nature of obiter and in any case they apply to such suits for recovery of possession of immovable property only as are based on title and have no bearing on suits for possession based on contract of tenancy or lease. This is clear from observations contained in column 1 at page 432:
Allahabad High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

M/S Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs Atm Constructions Pvt. Ltd. on 30 November, 2023

In this regard, attention is drawn to Ram Karan Singh and others v. Nakchhed Ahir and others, AIR 1931 Allahabad 429, which has been referred to by this Court in the Judgment reported in Raptakos Brett and Company Limited v. Ganesh Property, (2017) 10 SC 643 and we may notice only paragraph-21 of Raptakos Brett and Company Limited (supra):
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - R Bindal - Full Document

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs Sudera Realty Private Limited on 6 September, 2022

In Ram Karan Singh [Ram Karan Singh v. Nakchhad Ahir, 1931 SCC OnLine All 39 : AIR 1931 All 429] , a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court while examining the issue of maintainability of second suit for pendente lite and future mesne profits where earlier suit for possession and past mesne profits has already been decided has held as follows : (SCC Online All) “It seems to us that the cause of action for recovery of possession is not necessarily identical with the cause of action for recovery of mesne profits. The provisions of Order 2 Rule 4, indicate that the legislature thought it necessary to provide specially for joining a claim for mesne profits with one for recovery of possession of immovable property, and that but for such an express provision, such a combination might well have been disallowed. A suit for possession can be brought within twelve years of the date when the original dispossession took place and the cause of action for recovery of possession accrued. The claim for mesne profits can only be brought in respect of profits within three years of the institution of the suit and the date of the cause of action for mesne profits would in many cases be not identical with the original date of the cause of action for the recovery of possession. Mesne profits accrue from day to day and the cause of action is a continuing one, and arises out of the continued misappropriation of the profits to which the plaintiff is entitled. …” (Emphasis supplied)
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - K Joseph - Full Document

Sadhu Singh And Ors. vs Pritam Singh S/O Narain Singh And Anr. on 8 May, 1975

68. Before parting with the decision of the Allahabad High Court, mention mav be made of the decision in B. Ram Karan Singh v. Nakchhad Ahir. AIR 193] All 429, in which a Special Bench, which decided this case, held that a claim for mesne profits accruing subsequently to the institution of the previous suit is a claim based' on a different cause of action and is not barred bv the orovisions of Order 2, Rule 2- In this case no doubt it was observed that a cause of action for recoverv of immovable property was not necessarily identical with a cause of action for recovery of mesne profits, but these observations were made in a case where the second suit related to mesna profits for the oeriod subseauent to the institution of the previous suit for possession. In fact, the case-law was examined with a view only to consider whe-ther a suit for subseauent mesne profits was barred or not and not whether a suit for mesne profits accruing earlier to the institution of the previous suit was barred1. So far as the claim for mesne profits for the period prior to the first suit is concerned, it was in a way accepted that such a claim would be barred.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

Saghir Hassan vs Tayab Hasan on 16 September, 1940

In support of this argument reliance was placed on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Ram Karan Singh v. Nakchhed Ahir (31) 18 AIR 1931 All 129. This decision however does not support the appellant's case. It was decided in that case that where the plaintiff sued for possession of lands, but did not claim mesne profits accruing after the institution of the suit, and when mesne profits were not refused by the Court it was open to him to bring a subsequent suit for future mesne profits. In that case the plaintiff remained entitled to mesne profits inasmuch as he had sued for possession and was entitled to possession. If in these circumstances he is not given possession after a decree in his favour he is entitled to sue from time to time for mesne profits as they accrued. In the present suit however the position is different. The appellant did not sue for possession as mortgagee. He could have sued for such possession founding upon the terms of the mortgage deed and if it had been held that under the mortgage deed he was entitled to possession then no doubt the present suit would not have been barred. His failure however to sue for possession as mortgagee is fatal to his present claim. Under Order 2, Rule 2(3) a person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs; but if he omits, except with the leave of the Court, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Abburi Rangamma vs Chitrapu Venupurnachandra Rao And Ors. on 5 April, 1965

20. Apart from the Madras High Court a special Bench of the Allahabad High Court considered a similar contention in Ram Karan Singh v. Nakchhad Ahir, AIR 1931 All 429 (SB). In that case the claim for mesne profits related to a period subsequent to the institution of the previous suit. It was held that such a claim was based on a different cause of action and was not barred by the provisions of Order 2, Rule 2. The decision elaborately considered several aspects of this question.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 13 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

A. Subramanian vs Muthukrishna Reddiar on 9 July, 2004

13. A Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in RAM KARAN SINGH v. NAKCHHED AHIR (ILR 53 Allahabad Series 951) has taken a view that the cause of action for recovery of possession is not necessarily identical to the cause of action for recovery of mesne profits and the provisions of Order II, Rule 4 C.P.C. recognise the said position and indicate that the legislature thought it necessary to provide specially for joining the two causes of action in the same suit and that but for such an express provision such a combination might well have been disallowed.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next