Decided on July 21,1900

Raja Bhup Indar Bahadur Singh Appellant


HOBHOUSE, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is presented against an order made in the course of execution proceedings. The plaintiff in the suit, who was the original respondent in the appeal, claimed possession of land. On November 12, 1887, the District Judge passed a decree in his favour, ordering possession, and adding, "the plaintiff is also entitled to future mesne profits." The defendant, now appellant, appealed to the High Court, who, on July 19, 1889, reversed the decree and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff then appealed to the Queen in Council, who, on May 11, 1895, ordered that the decree of the High Court should be reversed and the District Judge's decree of November 12 be affirmed.
(2.) AFTER that the plaintiff prosecuted his claims in execution of the decree so affirmed by the Queen in Council. He recovered possession on November 30, 1895. Then he proceeded to recover mesne profits. He claimed them from September 23, 1886, on which day his suit was brought, down to the recovery of possession by him. The defendant objected that no decree remained to be executed except that of the Queen in Council, which made no mention of mesne profits; but the District Judge held that the Queen's order had come down for execution, and "its effect causes reference to be made to the original decree of This Court as a final decree in all applications for execution." Having thus settled that the Queen's order gave mesne profits by reference to the original decree, the District Judge went on to frame issues. The second of such issues was, "For what period are mesne profits recoverable?" It was arranged that this issue should be treated as preliminary to taking accounts, and should be argued separately. That was done, and the District Judge decided that mesne profits were due for the three years next after the date of the original decree, i.e., from November 12, 1887, to November 12, 1890.
(3.) FROM this decree the plaintiff appealed to the High Court, who, in the first instance, addressed themselves to a preliminary objection made by the defendant that no appeal is given by the Procedure Code in such a matter. The High Court overruled that objection. As it has been renewed here, and earnestly pressed upon their Lordships by Mr. Ross, it may be convenient to dispose of it in the first instance.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.