Babburu Basavayya And Ors. vs Babburu Guravayya And Anr. on 2 February, 1951
In Babburu Basavayya v. Babburu Guravayya (AIR 1951 Mad 938) (FB) it was held (at p. 943) :
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.21 seconds)K. Venkata Subbaiya vs K. Veeraiyya And Anr. on 21 January, 1955
In "K. Venkata Subbaiya v. K. Veeraiyya" (AIR 1955 Andh Pra 172), it was held:
Mohd. Amin And Others vs Vakil Ahmed And Others on 22 October, 1952
5. Learned counsel for the applicant invited my attention to Mohd. Amin v. Vakil Ahmad (AIR 1952 SC 358) for his submission that if a relief for mesne profits had not been claimed in the suit, a decree for the same could not be passed. The facts of that case were different. That was not a suit for partition. The relief claimed in that suit was for possession of certain properties together with rights appertaining thereto. The Supreme Court held that the relief claimed did not include a relief for mesne profits, and under the general law a relief not claimed could not be granted. That case, accordingly, has no application in the instant case.
Muthangi Ayyanna vs Muthangi Jaggarao And Ors. on 26 October, 1976
Our attention was invited to Muthangi Ayyana v. Muthangi Jaggarao (AIR 1977 SC 292) where it was held that a final decree in a partition suit cannot amend or go behind the preliminary decree on a matter determined by that decree. It was urged by the learned counsel that by conducting an enquiry into the question of mesne profits, the Court below would go behind the preliminary decree. We do not agree. A question of mesne profits is not a separate item of partition. It is included in the properties forming the subject-matter of partition. The court can accordingly conduct an enquiry into it at the stage of the preparation of the final decree.
1