Skip to content


Lalta Prasad Vs. Sri Ganeshji and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1922All117; (1922)ILR44All579; 1Ind.Cas.555
AppellantLalta Prasad
RespondentSri Ganeshji and anr.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (1908), section 2, clause (12) - mesne profits--decree granting mesne profits silent as to interest--interest realizable in execution proceedings. - - the court below, possibly inadequately instructed, followed the single judge case of abdul ghafur v......raised by this appeal is covered by authority. the question is, what is meant by the expression 'mesne profits' when the decree is silent as to interest. section 2, clause (12), of the code of civil procedure defines mesne profits as follows: 'those profits which the person in wrongful possession of such property actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received therefrom, together with interest on such profits'. if there had been any doubt as to the meaning of those words, it has been set at rest, and ought no longer to be a matter of controversy in india, by the decision of the privy council in the case of grish chunder lahiri v. shoshi shikhareswar roy (1900) i.l.r. 27 calc. 951 (967), where the privy council pointed out, in construing section 211 of the old code,.....
Judgment:

Walsh and Stuart, JJ.

1. The point raised by this appeal is covered by authority. The question is, what is meant by the expression 'mesne profits' when the decree is silent as to interest. Section 2, Clause (12), of the Code of Civil Procedure defines mesne profits as follows: 'those profits which the person in wrongful possession of such property actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received therefrom, together with interest on such profits'. If there had been any doubt as to the meaning of those words, it has been set at rest, and ought no longer to be a matter of controversy in India, by the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Grish Chunder Lahiri v. Shoshi Shikhareswar Roy (1900) I.L.R. 27 Calc. 951 (967), where the Privy Council pointed out, in construing Section 211 of the old Code, which in this respect does not differ from the section quoted above of the present Code, that 'its obvious effect was to provide that a simple decree for mesne profits should carry interest on them.' It is true that at the same time there is discretion in the court to penalize a party by disallowing such interest. Their Lordships explain this in the same judgment by saying: 'mesne profits are in the nature of damages which the court may mould according to the justice of the case.' But the question in this appeal, as in the case decided by the Privy Council, is: 'What is the effect of a decree which grants mesne profits and says nothing about interest,' which is what this decree does here. The court below, possibly inadequately instructed, followed the single Judge case of Abdul Ghafur v. Raja Ram (1900) I.L.R. 22 All. 262 and appeared not to be aware of the two-Judge case of Narpat Singh v. Har Gayan (1903) I.L.R. 25 All. 275, which would have drawn its attention to the Privy Council decision referred to. But having regard to the cases decided subsequently, the decision in the case of Abdul Ghafur v. Raja Ram (1900) I.L.R. 22 All. 262 must be taken to have been overruled. The appeal must be allowed and execution directed to take place for the interest at 6 per cent. due by law. The case will go back to the lower court with this direction. The appellant must have his costs.


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