Skip to content


Sita Ram Lakshmanji Vs. DipnaraIn Mandal Etc. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal Nos. 2369 and 2370 of 1968
Judge
Reported inAIR1977SC1870; (1977)4SCC601C; 1977(9)LC338(SC)
AppellantSita Ram Lakshmanji
RespondentDipnaraIn Mandal Etc.
Excerpt:
- [] the government of mysore by an order defined backward classes and directed that 30 per cent of the seats in professional and technical colleges and institutions shall be reserved for them and 18 per cent to the schedule castes and scheduled tribes. it was laid down that classification of socially and educationally backward classes should be made on the basis of economic condition and occupation. by a letter the government informed the director of technical education that it had been decided that 25% of the maximum marks for the examination in optional subjects shall be fixed as interview marks. the selection will be conducted by a committee composed of heads of technical institutions aid in allotting marks for interview factors like general knowledge, personality and..........6 of the bihar land reforms act, 1950, the appellants cannot obtain a decree for possession of the suit properties, those properties having vested in the state government on january 1, 1956. mr. desai has, therefore, not been able to challenge the decree passed by the high court dismissing the appellant's suit for possession. mr. desai has also not been able to press his claim for past mesne profits in view of the concurrent finding on that question against him. he, however, argues that the appellants are entitled to mesne profits from january 25, 1952 when the suit was filed until january 1, 1956, the date of vesting. since the respondents were wrongfully in possession of the suit properties during this period, we are of the opinion that the appellants are entitled to a decree for mesne.....
Judgment:

Y.V. Chandrachud, J.

1. In view of Section 6 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, the appellants cannot obtain a decree for possession of the suit Properties, those properties having vested in the State Government on January 1, 1956. Mr. Desai has, therefore, not been able to challenge the decree passed by the High Court dismissing the appellant's suit for possession. Mr. Desai has also not been able to press his claim for past mesne profits in view of the concurrent finding on that question against him. He, however, argues that the appellants are entitled to mesne profits from January 25, 1952 when the suit was filed until January 1, 1956, the date of vesting. Since the respondents were wrongfully in possession of the suit properties during this period, we are of the opinion that the appellants are entitled to a decree for mesne profits limited to that period.

2. We therefore, confirm the judgment dated May 7, 1965 passed by the High Court in the letters Patent Appeal, with the modifications that there Shall be an enquiry in to mesne profits for the period January 25, 1952 till January 1, 1956. Appellants shall pay half the costs of these appeals to the respondents in one set.

3. The stay of prosecution is vacated.


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