Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.20 seconds)

Gurudwara Baba Zorawar Singh And Baba ... vs Shri Piara Singh And Sons on 6 December, 2006

16. It is undoubtedly well settled that cause of action for a relief of recovery of mesne profits is separate and distinct from cause of action for the relief of possession. (Gurudwara Baba Zorawar Singh and Baba Fateh Singh Ji Regd. Society Vs Sh. Piara Singh and Sons, 141 (2001) DLT 228 (DB) and Syndicate Bank Vs Raj Kumar Tanwar, 154 (2008) DLT 230 (DB)). At the same time, it would not be correct to contend that a suit for mesne profits can not be filed clubbing it with the prayer for recovery of possession or that such reliefs must necessarily be split into two different suits; first, a suit for the latter relief (recovery of possession) and after a decree passed therein has Sanjay Suneja & Anr Vs Punjab National Bank Page 21 of 32 become final and binding the second foR latter relief (mesne profits).
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 9 - T S Thakur - Full Document

Shiv Kumar Sharma vs Santosh Kumari on 18 September, 2007

18. Thus, even if a suit is first filed only for recovery Sanjay Suneja & Anr Vs Punjab National Bank Page 24 of 32 of possession of immovable property with no claim made for relief of mesne profits, a second suit for recovery of mesne profits for the period subsequent to the filing of the suit for recovery of possession may be instituted. [Shiv Kumar Sharma Vs Santosh Kumari (2007) 8 SCC 600]. But , it is equally settled that such suit for recovery of mesne profits would have to be restricted to what is within the period of limitation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 252 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1