Skip to content


Sheshagiri Shambhulinga Upadhya Vs. Manjayya Sanaya and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1926Bom265
AppellantSheshagiri Shambhulinga Upadhya
RespondentManjayya Sanaya and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....to be ascertained as at the date of the high court decree under appeal, and on that principle mesne profits subsequent to the decree cannot be taken into account. there is no practice of this court allowing such mesne profits to be taken into account, and the practice of the calcutta high court, referred to in mahabir prasad singh v. anup narain singh [1918] 3 p l.j. 377 covers only mesne profits up to the date of the decree of the appellate court. the decision of the privy council in moti chand v. ganga prasad singh [1902] 24 all. 174 that interest subsequent to a decree should not be allowed to be included, would seem applicable to the case of mesne profits, as has been held in stobrainania ayyar v. sellammal [1916] 39 mad. 843 ; and the old rulings of the privy council in.....
Judgment:

Fawcett, J.

1. A question has been raised as to whether mesne profits subsequent to the date of the High Court decree, which have been awarded to the decree-holders, can be taken into consideration in making an estimate of the value under paragraph 2 of Section 110 of the Civil P.C. In our opinion, the answer to this is that they cannot. It has been held in Raoji Bhikaji v. Laxmibai 1920] 44 Bom. 104following the case of Surendra Nath Roy v. Divarka Naih [1917] 44 Cal. 119 that the value under Section 110 ought to be ascertained as at the date of the High Court decree under appeal, and on that principle mesne profits subsequent to the decree cannot be taken into account. There is no practice of this Court allowing such mesne profits to be taken into account, and the practice of the Calcutta High Court, referred to in Mahabir Prasad Singh v. Anup Narain Singh [1918] 3 P L.J. 377 covers only mesne profits up to the date of the decree of the appellate Court. The decision of the Privy Council in Moti Chand v. Ganga Prasad Singh [1902] 24 All. 174 that interest subsequent to a decree should not be allowed to be included, would seem applicable to the case of mesne profits, as has been held in Stobrainania Ayyar v. Sellammal [1916] 39 Mad. 843 ; and the old rulings of the Privy Council in Gooroopersad Khoond v. Juggutchunder [1860] 8 M.I.A. 166 and Doorga Dass Chowdry v. Ramanauth Chowdry [1860] 8 M.I.A. 262 were against any inclusion of interest or mesne profits claimed subsequent to the decree.

2. Therefore, we direct the lower Court to inquire whether the final order of this Court involves directly or indirectly some claim or question to or respecting property of Rs. 10,000, or upwards, taking such property to be lands in suit as at the date of the High Court decree, namely, August 22, 1924, and excluding any mesne profits awarded under the decree.


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