Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.26 seconds)
Purushottam And Anr. vs Nag Vastra Bhandar on 22 June, 1978 cites

Kanai Lal Maity vs Shyam Kishore Das And Ors. on 22 April, 1958

These observations are relied upon for the judgment-debtor. If on the basis of the above observation the learned Judges of the Madras High Court can be said to have taken the view that the right to apply for mesne profits arises only after happening of one of the events mentioned in Order 20, Rule 12 of the Code, with respect, I would differ from that view. As, I have said above, the provisions in Order 20, Rule 12 (1) of the Code while doing away with the necessity of filing a fresh suit for future mesne profits accruing after the institution of the suit enable the Court to direct enquiry as to future mesne profits for the period specified in Clause (c) (iii) of Rule 12. Once such a direction is given in the preliminary decree, the right to apply for ascertainment of the mesne profits in my view arises immediately after the passing of the preliminary decree. All that clause (c) of Rule 12 (1) provides is that the decree-holder will be entitled for ascertainment of mesne profits only for a particular period. The provisions do not prohibit the decree-holder from applying for ascertainment of the mesne profits, or the provisions do not compel the decree-holder to wait until any of the three events contemplated by clause (c) (iii) occurs. This view finds support from the observations of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Kanai Lal Maity v. Shyam Kishore Das . The observations are (at pp. 77, 78):
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - K C Gupta - Full Document

Babburu Basavayya And Ors. vs Babburu Guravayya And Anr. on 2 February, 1951

10. The learned trial Judge relied upon come observations in Babburu's case (FB) (cited supra) to hold that the right to apply for ascertainment of mesne profits arises after happening of one of the events mentioned in Order 20, Rule 12. Mr. Jaiswal, the learned Counsel for the non-applicant/judgment-debtor, also strongly relied upon the observations In this case. It appears from the report that the Full Bench of the Madras High Court was not called upon to decide in that case the question as to from what point of time, the right to apply for mesne profits under Order 20, Rule 12, arises. While discussing the points that fell for decision in that case, the observations were made (at p. 940).
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 86 - Full Document

Chitturi Subbanna vs Kudapa Subbanna & Others on 18 December, 1964

"Because the decree-holder is entitled to mesne profits up to the date of his recovery of possession, it does not follow that his right to recover mesne profits arises on his taking possession. His right to recover mesne profits accrues on the day he recovers his possession." Mr. Oka, the learned Counsel for the decree-holder placed reliance upon certain observations of the Supreme Court in Chittoori Subbanna v. Kudappa Subbanna . Of course, the point with which we are concerned in this case did not directly arise before their Lordships of the Supreme Court while deciding that case. However, while discussing the point that arose before their Lordships, their Lordships observed (at p. 1333) :--
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 86 - R Dayal - Full Document

Mahanth Sudarshan Dass vs Mahanth Ramkripal Dass And Ors. on 9 August, 1966

It is true that ordinarily there would be one preliminary and one final decree. However, there is nothing in the C. P. C or in particular in provisions of Order 20, Rule 12 (1) of the Coda which can in a proper case prohibit the Court from passing more than on preliminary decree and one final executable decree in a suit. Even interim final decrees in regard to part of subject-matters of the suit may be passed in appropriate cases. This view is supported by the observations of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Babburu's case and the decision of Patna High Court in Sudarshan Dass v. Ramkripal Dass and the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Kanai Lal Maity v. Shyam Kishore Das .
Patna High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1