RAJA BHUP INDAR BAHADUR SINGH Vs. BIJAI BAHADUR SINGH
Raja Bhup Indar Bahadur Singh
BIJAI BAHADUR SINGH
Click here to view full judgement.
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.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.