Skip to content


Vellathusseri Chakkalakumpil Raman Menon Vs. Vellathusseri Chakkalakumpil Pangunni Menon - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1926Mad952; (1926)50MLJ563
AppellantVellathusseri Chakkalakumpil Raman Menon
RespondentVellathusseri Chakkalakumpil Pangunni Menon
Cases ReferredBanwari Lal v. Mussammat Rama
Excerpt:
- - 4. i think that case is clearly distinguishable. shosihi shikhareswar roy 10 m l j 356 (pc) lays down and what it does not, has been well pointed out by mukerjee and holmwoud, jj. 74 of 1924, in disallowing interest on mesne profits awarded by a decree which was in similar terms like the present one, wallace, j. har gayan ilr (1903) a 275 which, like the case in girish chunder lahiri v......to pay interest on the mesne profits decreed against him.2. the decree, so far as it relates to mesne profits, runs as follows:that he (defendant) do pay to plaintiff rs. 375 for kannipattom of the year 1092 and future mesne profits from 8th dhanu 1092 at 638 paras of paddy and rs. 338 a year lending' with 7th dianu until surrender, or until the expiration of three years from this date.3. in the light of, the decision in girish chunder lahiri v. shoshi shikkareswar roy 10 m l j 356 (pc) the learned district judge decided that interest on mesne profits should be allowed unless expressly excluded and allowed it at the rate of two per ten.4. i think that case is clearly distinguishable. there, the trial court did not fix the amount of mesne profits but directed that it should be.....
Judgment:

Madhavan Nair, J.

1. The question involved in this appeal is whether the judgment-debtor, who is the appellant before me, is bound to pay interest on the mesne profits decreed against him.

2. The decree, so far as it relates to mesne profits, runs as follows:

That he (defendant) do pay to plaintiff Rs. 375 for kannipattom of the year 1092 and future mesne profits from 8th Dhanu 1092 at 638 paras of paddy and Rs. 338 a year lending' with 7th Dianu until surrender, or until the expiration of three years from this date.

3. In the light of, the decision in Girish Chunder Lahiri v. Shoshi Shikkareswar Roy 10 M L J 356 (PC) the learned District Judge decided that interest on mesne profits should be allowed unless expressly excluded and allowed it at the rate of two per ten.

4. I think that case is clearly distinguishable. There, the Trial Court did not fix the amount of mesne profits but directed that it should be ascertained on enquiry at the time of the execution of the decree and it was held that a decree for mesne profits carried interest on such profits, having regaid to the definition of the expression ' mesne profits ' in the Code. In the present case the amount of mesne profits which the decree holder was to get under the decree has been already fixed by the Court and was not to be ascertained afterwards It cannot be said that the amount so fixed does not include interest. I do not, therefore, think that the ruling of the Privy Council or the definition of mesne profits relied upon can justify the award of interest.

5. What the decision in Girish Chunder Lahiri v. Shosihi Shikhareswar Roy 10 M L J 356 (PC) lays down and what it does not, has been well pointed out by Mukerjee and Holmwoud, JJ. in Harmanoje Narain Singh v. Ramprosad Singh (1907) 6 C L J 43. Rerferring to this decision and to another decision of their own Court the learned Judges state:

They are, no doubt, authorities for the proposition that where a decree declares that the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits and says nothing about interest, if the amount of mesne profits is left for determination by the Court of execution, the decree holder is entitled to interest upon the mesne profits and to have such interest added to the mesne profits when they are ascertained But these cases do not lay down, that, if the Court which ascertains the mesne profits has omitted to allow interest, it is open to the Court which executes the decree for mesne profits to allow interest in execution proceedings. It is an elementary principle that the Court which executes the decree must execute it as it stands. Besides, there is no rule which makes it obligatory upon the Court to allow interest on the mesne profits; it is a matter of judicial discretion, to be exercised according to the circumstances of the case. If therefore, the Court which assessed meane profits improperly exercised its discretion and disallowed interest on erroneous grounds the remedy of the decree-holders was by way of an appeal. They cannot now claim interest when the decree for mesne profits is silent as to interest.

6. These observations cannot be brushed aside as mere obiter dicta as suggested by the learned vakil for the respondent. I respectfully agree with them. See also Narendra v. Byom-kesh (1919) 30 C L J 305.

7. In A.A.A.O. No. 74 of 1924, in disallowing interest on mesne profits awarded by a decree which was in similar terms like the present one, Wallace, J., states the law thus:

I read the law to be that, when the Trial Court has not fixed a figure for mesne profits, but has left that to be determined in execution, the executing Court may record interest; but when it Has fixed a figure for mesne profits, it is not open to the executing Court to record interest, because it cannot be said that the mesne profits figure already fixed does not include interest. Interest on the raesne profits, is, therefore, disallowed.

8. On behalf of the respondent my attention has been drawn to a decision in Lalta Prased v. Sri Ganeshji ILR (1922) A 579 in which, though the amount of mesne profits was fixed, the learned Judges following the Privy Council decision allowed interest; and in so doing, they also relied upon a prior decision of their own Court in Narpat Singh v. Har Gayan ILR (1903) A 275 which, like the case in Girish Chunder Lahiri v. Shoshi Shikhareswar Roy 10 M L J 356 (PC) related to the execution of a decree where the mesne profits had not been fixed by the trial Court. Apparently, (he learned Judges do not observe the distinction pointed out in Har-manoje Narain Singh v. Ramprosad Singh (1907) 6 C L J 462 and also by Wallace, J., in A.A.A.O. No. 74 of 1924. The decision in Lalta Prasad v. Sri Ganeshji ILR (1922) A 579 ignores the principle that the Court which executes a decree must execute it as it stands, and also overlooks the fact that, when the trial Court fixed the amount of mesne profits, it must have done so with due regard to the definition of mesne profits and that there was nothing to show that the amount so fixed did not include interest. I am not inclined to follow that decision. The case in Banwari Lal v. Mussammat Rama (1912)17 IC 915 does not help the respondent as the facts do not show whether the trial Court had fixed the amount of mesne profits in that case.

9. I hold that, since the amount of mesne profits was fixed by the Trial Court, it was not open to the executing Court to award interest, because it cannot be said that the mesne profits already fixed do not include interest. The decree of the learned District Judge as regards interest on mesne profits is, therefore, set aside with costs here and in the Court below.

10. In the Memorandum of Objections filed by the respondent the question raised is as regards the price of paddy per para. It is contended that the Lower Court erred in fixing the price of paddy at annas 12 a para instead of Rs. 1-8-0 a para. This is purely a question of fact. There is ample evidence to support the concurrent conclusions of the Lower Courts on this point. The Memorandum of Objections is dismissed with costs.


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