Skip to content


Gulam MohiuddIn Narmavala Vs. Dayabhai Chimanlal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 301 of 1922
Judge
Reported inAIR1923Bom398; (1923)25BOMLR447; 73Ind.Cas.442
AppellantGulam MohiuddIn Narmavala
RespondentDayabhai Chimanlal
DispositionAppeal allowed
Excerpt:
.....2(12) of the code 'mesne profits' of property means those profits which the person in wrongful possession of such property actually has received or might with ordinary diligence have received there from, and clearly..........property which was let out to him by the plaintiff. he sub-let the premises and in addition to the rent received a premium of rs. 1250. under section 2(12) of the code 'mesne profits' of property means those profits which the person in wrongful possession of such property actually has received or might with ordinary diligence have received there from, and clearly rs. 1351 was profit received by the first defendant, so the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for that amount together with rent at the annual rate of rs. 271 for the period for which he sued, less the amount which had been paid by defendant no. 1, namely, rs. 542.2. the plaintiff claims that pleader's fees are payable on rs. 5,000 the value of the subject-matter of the suit. we think that contention is sound under the law.....
Judgment:

Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.

1. The first defendant held over after notice was given to vacate the suit property which was let out to him by the plaintiff. He sub-let the premises and in addition to the rent received a premium of Rs. 1250. Under Section 2(12) of the Code 'mesne profits' of property means those profits which the person in wrongful possession of such property actually has received or might with ordinary diligence have received there from, and clearly Rs. 1351 was profit received by the first defendant, so the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for that amount together with rent at the annual rate of Rs. 271 for the period for which he sued, less the amount which had been paid by defendant No. 1, namely, Rs. 542.

2. The plaintiff claims that pleader's fees are payable on Rs. 5,000 the value of the subject-matter of the suit. We think that contention is sound under the law regulating the charge for pleader's fees when the suit was filed. The appeal, therefore, succeeds and there must be a decree in terms of the judgment with costs throughout.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //