Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.25 seconds)Article 113 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 51 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Mahant Narayana Dasjee Varu And Ors. vs Board Of Trustees, The Tirumalai ... on 10 September, 1964
27. Learned counsel for the appellants also had placed strong reliance on Narayana Dossjee v. Board of Trustees (1 supra) to the effect that the mesne profits necessary should be the net profits i.e., the profits derived after making deductions towards the necessary expenditure for earning the said profits.
Kumudini Ramdas Shah vs K.M. Mody And Ors. on 21 December, 1984
Reliance also was placed on Balappa v. Waman (9 supra) and Kumudini Ramdas Shah v. K.M. Mody (8 supra). Here is a case where the parties have been agitating relating to the property in a prior litigation and as per the evidence of D.W. 1 and also the stand taken in the written statement, the suit was thought of only subsequent to the termination of the said litigation and hence, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, the trial Court had arrived at a conclusion that Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable and hence the suit claim is within limitation. I am also in agreement with the view expressed by the trial Court. Inasmuch as this is a matter where by virtue of the pending litigation the respondent-plaintiff could not approach the Court at the earlier point of time and after the dismissal of the appeal--Ex.A-4, the respondent-Plaintiff had rightly instituted the suit well within a period of limitation.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Mariumbi Aslamkhan And Anr. vs Vithoba Yeshwanta And Ors. on 15 July, 1969
In Mariumbi v. Yeshwanta (4 supra), it was held that the claim of mesne profits must be confined to a period of three years before filing suit. It is not in dispute a litigation was fought by the same parties and by virtue of an order of the Court the respondent-plaintiff herein was prevented from entering upon the land. The details of filing of the suit--O.S. 123 of 1970 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Machilipatnam and carrying the matter by way of appeal had been admitted by both the parties and all the particulars were not spoken by both P.W. 1 and D.W. 1 in this regard. It is also not in dispute that if the accrual of cause of action is taken as the date of judgment--:Ex. A-4, the claim made by the plaintiff is perfectly within the limitation.
Thammana Nukiah Shetti vs Velapa Appalaraju And Ors. on 1 August, 1974
In Shambu Dayal v. Motilal (5 supra), it was held that possession of co-sharer cannot be wrongful within Section 2(12) of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore one cannot claim mesne profits against the other in T.N. Shetti v. Appalaraju (2 supra) it was held that the plaintiff - Court auction purchaser of undivided share is entitled to possession only from the date when a specific allotment is made in his favour and a specific allotment is not by a mere division in status and the only legal consequence of a division in status of a joint Hindu family is that the erstwhile coparceners become tenants in common without in principle becoming entitled to a specific portion of the property that belonged to the joint family and the right of the auction purchaser to get mesne profits commences from the date on which his right to possession starts if he is deprived unlawfully of its possession from that date.
Mallela Venkata Subbamma vs Gogulapati Raja Rathamma And Ors. on 31 January, 1958
Reliance also was placed on T. Venkata Subbamma v. T. Rathamma (3 supra).
Muhammed Haneefa Rowther vs Sara Umma And Ors. on 20 March, 1990
In Muhammed Haneefa Rowther v. Sara Umma (6 supra) it is held (SIC) a co-sharer admittedly in possession of the disputed premises is accountable for receipt of profits during disputed period and claim for profits in that period by other co-sharers cannot be regarded as a claim for mesne profits as defined in Section 2(12) or under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure.