BABBURU BASAVAYYA Vs. BABBURU GURAVAYYA
LAWS(MAD)-1951-2-2
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on
February 02,1951
BABBURU BASAVAYYA
Appellant
VERSUS
BABBURU GURAVAYYA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
IN RE: EKANATHALINGASWAMI [REFERRED TO]RAMASUBRAMANIA V. KARIMBIL PATI [REFERRED TO]
BAPA LAKSHMANNA V. KOTESWARARAO [REFERRED TO]
SWAMINATHA ODAYAR V. GOPALASWAMI ODAYAR [REFERRED TO]
HUSSAIN SAHEB V. HAMID SAHIB [REFERRED TO]
KALIDAS RAKSHAT V. SARASWATI DASI [REFERRED TO]
RAI KIRAN CHANDRA ROY BAHADUR VS. ERFAN KARIKAR [REFERRED TO]
BELLAMKONDA SUBBIAH VS. JETTI KOTAMMA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
KASI ALIAS ALAGAPPA CHETTIAR AND ORS. VS. RM.A.RM.V. RAMANATHAN CHETTIAR ALIAS SRINIVASAN CHETTIAR THROUGH HIS NEXT FRIEND, AV.PL.CT. RAMANATHAN CHETTIAR AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
PANIKKATHE KUTTI PENNU MARUVALAMMAS SON RAGHAVA MANNADIAR VS. PANIKKATHE KUTTI PENNU MARUVALAMMAS SON THEYYUNNI MANNADIAR [REFERRED TO]
GEDELA ATCHAYYA AND ORS. VS. KOPPISETTI APPALARAJU AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL RAHIM SAHEB VS. ABDUL SALAM SAHIB [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
B NARASIMHA RAO VS. T MADHAVA RAO & [LAWS(MAD)-2018-2-301] [REFERRED TO]K LAKSHMAMMA VS. T M RANGAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-2003-8-66] [REFERRED TO]
AIR INDIA LIMITED VS. ATMA RAM PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-1996-4-31] [REFERRED TO]
NEETY GUPTA VS. USHA GUPTA & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-10-504] [REFERRED TO]
KAKUTURU RAGHAVA REDDY AND OTHERS VS. PATNAM SREEDEVAMMA AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-1977-3-47] [REFERRED TO]
K VENKATA SUBBAIYA VS. K VEERAIYYA [LAWS(APH)-1955-1-22] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NARAIN PRASAD SAH VS. RAMJI PRASAD SAH [LAWS(PAT)-1956-1-14] [REFERRED TO]
TULSI RAM VS. KESHRI PRASAD [LAWS(PAT)-1961-9-5] [REFERRED TO]
DHANAKEERTHIAH VS. VlMALAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-1972-6-20] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNABAI VS. KALAWATI [LAWS(KAR)-1976-7-23] [REFERRED TO]
SANTHOSH KUMAR VS. INDIRA MOHANDAS [LAWS(KER)-2001-8-43] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR SINGH VS. CHANDRASHEKHAR RAO [LAWS(MPH)-1983-10-2] [REFERRED TO]
PURUSHOTTAM VS. NAG VASTRA BHANDAR [LAWS(BOM)-1978-6-16] [REFERRED TO]
PATURU VENKATA SESHAIAH,(DIED) VS. PATURU KONDAIAH DIED [LAWS(APH)-2024-11-8] [REFERRED TO]
MAHADEI BEWA VS. KELUNI DEI [LAWS(ORI)-1960-12-3] [REFERRED TO]
SUSAINATHAN VS. MANIYASARAM [LAWS(MAD)-2003-9-200] [REFERRED TO]
AHMED ALI KHAN BAHADUR DIED VS. BANGULURU VEERALLA [LAWS(APH)-1958-6-11] [REFERRED TO]
KASIBHATLA SATYANARAYANA SASTRULU VS. KASIBHATLA MALLIKARJUNA SASTRULU [LAWS(APH)-1959-3-36] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KISHORE VS. KESHO RAM [LAWS(ALL)-1972-2-6] [REFERRED TO]
INDRADEO PRASAD SINGH VS. SHEONATH PRASAD SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-1979-9-8] [REFERRRED TO]
RATTAN LAL VS. MADAN LAL MALHOTRA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-1978-11-27] [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMI AMMAL VS. SUBBARAJ [LAWS(MAD)-1974-3-9] [REFERRED TO(FB)).]
V P HASHUMAL SOLE PROPRIETOR HASHUMALS VS. BOMBAY HALWA HOUSE [LAWS(MAD)-1983-9-24] [REFERRED TO]
THAMMANNAGOWDA VS. SHANKARAPPAGOWDA [LAWS(KAR)-1951-12-2] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRATAP SONI VS. RANA PRATAP SONI [LAWS(DLH)-2006-2-44] [REFERRED TO]
BANDLAMOORI VENKATA LAKSHMAMMA VS. NAYINENI JANAKAMMA [LAWS(APH)-2010-12-118] [REFERRED TO]
M.K. MAMIK VS. WELHAM GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL [LAWS(UTN)-2015-7-43] [REFERRED TO]
HARI MOHAN THAKUR AND OTHERS VS. MAHENDRA NARAINCHAND AND OTHERS. [LAWS(PAT)-1986-9-44] [REFERRED TO]
PERUMAL VADYAR VS. DEVI [LAWS(KER)-1990-6-59] [REFERRED TO]
ARUNACHALA MUDALI VS. MARAGATHAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-1954-8-16] [REFERRED TO]
DURAISAMY VS. S. SIMON [LAWS(MAD)-1997-9-149] [REFERRED TO]
A SUBRMANIAN VS. MUTHUKRISHNA [LAWS(MAD)-2004-7-135] [REFERRED TO]
MARIYUMMA VS. KUNHAMBU NAIR [LAWS(KER)-1967-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
PONNUSWAMI UDAYAR VS. SANTHAPPA UDAYAR [LAWS(MAD)-1962-4-15] [REFERRED TO]
K P ANANDAN VS. K P MADHAVAN [LAWS(MAD)-2011-4-645] [REFERRED TO]
UDEKAR SAHU VS. CHANDRASEKHAR SAHU AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-1958-1-11] [REFERRED TO]
RADHA KRISHAN TICKOO VS. BHUSHAN LAL TICKOO [LAWS(J&K)-1970-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
R JAYAPRADA BAI VS. BONDILI JAYASRI BAI [LAWS(APH)-2005-7-25] [REFERRED TO]
SARASWATI DEBI VS. SATYA NARAYAN GUPTA [LAWS(CAL)-1976-6-27] [REFERRED TO]
VEERAMACHANENI GANGADHARARAO VS. KANURI VENKATGESWARA RAO [LAWS(APH)-1973-7-16] [REFERRED TO]
J. VENKATARAMA REDDY VS. J. LAKSHMI REDDY AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-1975-4-34] [REFERRED TO]
MOKKAPTI NAGESWARA SASTRY VS. N L NARASIMHA RAO [LAWS(APH)-1982-12-28] [REFERRED TO]
KALEPU SUBBARAJAMMA VS. TIGUTI VENKATA PEDIRAJU [LAWS(APH)-1983-3-28] [REFERRED TO]
A. NOORJEHAN VS. KABIR [LAWS(MAD)-2012-10-251] [REFERRED TO]
JOTI PARSHAD LAHRI MAL VS. GANESHI LAL RAM NARAIN [LAWS(P&H)-1960-8-19] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHU MAHTON VS. BULAK MAHTON [LAWS(PAT)-1953-3-9] [REFERRED TO]
SETH GIRDHARI LAL VS. SETH GAJA NAND [LAWS(DLH)-1973-11-29] [REFERRED]
B VENKATA LAKSHMAMMA VS. N JANAKAMMA [LAWS(APH)-2010-12-95] [REFERRED TO]
N PALANISWAMY VS. N GOVINDARAJ [LAWS(MAD)-1999-11-96] [REFERRED TO]
PURETY SURYA PRAKASH RAO VS. PURETY VENKATARATNAM [LAWS(APH)-2000-7-44] [REFERRED TO]
K M KRISHNAIAH VS. T T D [LAWS(APH)-1997-7-35] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHAVA REDDY VS. P SREEDEVAMMA [LAWS(APH)-1977-3-19] [REFERRED TO]
SIMMA KRISHNAMMA VS. NAKKA LATCHUMANAIDU [LAWS(APH)-1957-11-42] [REFERRED TO]
HARBIR KAUR VS. CHARAN SINGH TIWANA [LAWS(P&H)-1983-11-24] [REFERRED TO]
PRITAM SINGH VS. SURJIT SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-1983-11-84] [REFERRED TO]
MUHAMMED HANEEFA ROWTHER VS. SARA UMMA [LAWS(KER)-1990-3-44] [REFERRED TO]
MISHRILAL VS. NATHU [LAWS(MPH)-1998-1-24] [REFERRED TO]
BABU LAL JANVED VS. PARWATI BHOGIRAM [LAWS(MPH)-1991-9-3] [REFERRED TO]
MAHANTH SUDARSHAN DASS VS. MAHANTH RAMKRIPAL DASS [LAWS(PAT)-1966-8-3] [REFERRED TO]
CHANUMURI SUBHAVENI VS. SAPPA SRINIVASA RAO [LAWS(APH)-2004-3-130] [REFERRED TO]
S V ANAND VS. S R K MURTHY [LAWS(APH)-2005-6-4] [REFERRED TO]
R SAMBANDAM VS. G CHIDAMBARAM PILLAI [LAWS(MAD)-1982-2-8] [REFERRED TO]
ZAINAB BIBI VS. SYED BHAUDEEN SAHIB [LAWS(MAD)-1991-12-10] [REFERRED TO]
UDEKAR VS. CHANDRA SEKHAR SAHU [LAWS(ORI)-1960-11-9] [REFERRED TO]
SAYAMAMA VS. CHINNA GOWD [LAWS(APH)-1966-2-29] [REFERRED TO]
KALKONDA PANDU RANGAIAH VS. KALKONDA KRISHNAIAH [LAWS(APH)-1973-3-19] [REFERRED TO]
RAVELLA VENKATA SUBBAIAH DIED VS. PYDIPATI VENKATA SUBBAIAH DIED [LAWS(APH)-1974-7-18] [REFERRED TO]
CHIDAMBARA VADHYAR VS. RAMASWAMY IYER [LAWS(KER)-1981-9-30] [REFERRED TO]
GHANASHYAM MARTHA VS. BRUNDABAN PRADHAN [LAWS(ORI)-1976-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVAJI VS. DEOJI [LAWS(MPH)-1972-9-12] [REFERRED TO]
TAUSIF AHMAD VS. MUNSHI BAHARUDDIN [LAWS(PAT)-1965-1-9] [REFERRED TO]
PANDURANG RAMJI DOIPHODE VS. DHONDIRAM RAMJI DOIPHODE [LAWS(BOM)-1977-11-66] [REFERRED TO]
B NARASIMHA RAO VS. B UMA MAHESWARA RAO [LAWS(MAD)-2018-2-703] [REFERRED TO]
SITA KASHYAP VS. HARBANS KASHYAP [LAWS(DLH)-2011-3-129] [REFERRED TO]
MERLA VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA VS. MERLA SRIVANI [LAWS(APH)-2016-6-18] [REFERRED TO]
RAJINDER KAUR (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIR USHA VS. GURBHAJAN KAUR (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS UPINDER KAUR AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2018-4-14] [REFERRED TO]
BASU BEHERA VS. DOMBARU BEHERA [LAWS(ORI)-1954-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
PRAFULLA KUMAR SAHOO VS. CHARULATA SAHOO [LAWS(ORI)-1986-9-27] [REFERRED TO]
BHUVANESWARI VS. SANKARANARAYANAN [LAWS(MAD)-2013-8-193] [REFERRED TO]
SARADHAMBAL VS. RAMAKRISHNAN [LAWS(MAD)-2012-12-105] [REFERRED TO]
R. SUBRAMANIAM VS. R. SURENDRAN [LAWS(MAD)-2020-5-92] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL MADAN VS. R K MADAN [LAWS(DLH)-2009-8-63] [REFERRED TO]
KOLLURI SUSEELAMMA VS. YERRAMILLI NAGESWARA RAO [LAWS(APH)-1999-4-35] [REFERRED TO]
JAMPALA PAKEERAIAH VS. KATURU VENKATESWARARAO [LAWS(APH)-1960-2-33] [REFERRED TO]
HIRACHAND KIKABHAI VS. CHANDRASEN MOTICHAND [LAWS(GJH)-1965-9-4] [REFERRED]
PARVATHI VS. VENKATRAMANA PRASAD [LAWS(KAR)-2002-12-21] [REFERRED TO]
VANAMAMALAI THEVAR VS. NARAYANA PILLAI [LAWS(MAD)-1967-4-59] [REFERRED]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The plff., here respondent, obtained a preliminary decree for partition of joint family properties, & later on, during the pendency of the partition suit, applied in I. A. no. 83 of 1947 for an enquiry into the profits of the properties realised by the defts. subsequent to the institution of the suit & a final decree for his share of such profits. The defts. opposed the application on the grounds there was no prayer in the plaint for the recovery of such profits & that the preliminary decree passed in the suit did not direct an enquiry into the same. The Court below held that these objections, though well founded in fact, were untenable in law, & by its order dated 9-7-1948, posted the case for an enquiry into the merits. This civil revision petition is filed against the order of the Court overruling the objections of the defts.
(2.)In Ghulusam Bivi v. Ahamdsa Rowther, 42 Mad. 296 Ayling & Krishnan JJ. held that if a preliminary decree in a partition suit either "intentionally or inadvertently" omitted to direct an enquiry into future profits a subsequent application for directing such an enquiry was incompetent & the Court had no power to pass a final decree awarding such profits. This decision goes the whole length of the petitioner's contention, but its correctness has been questioned in later decisions of this Court & in the arguments before us.
(3.)It is necessary at the outset to distinguish between three different types of oases in which a question of profits or mesne profits might arise : (1) Suits for ejectment or recovery of possession of immoveable property from a person in possession without title, together with a claim for past or past & future mesne profits. (2) Suits for partition by one or more tenants-in-common against others with a claim for account of past or past & future profits. (3) Suits for partition by a member of a joint Hindu family with a claim for an account from the manager. In the first case, the possession of the defts. not being lawful, the plff. is entitled to recover "mesne profits" as defined in Section 2, Clause (12), Civ. P. C., such profits being really in the nature of damages. In the second case, the possession & receipt of profits by the deft, not being wrongful the plff's. remedy is to have an account of such profits making all just allowances in favour of the collecting tenant in common. In the third case, the plff. must take the joint family property as it exists at the date of the demand for partition and is not entitled to open up past accounts or claim relief on the ground of past inequality of enjoyment of the profit, except where the manager has been guilty of fraudulent conduct or misappropriation. The plff. would, however, be in the position of a tenant-in-common from the date of severance in status & his rights would have to be worked out on that basis.
(2.)In Ghulusam Bivi v. Ahamdsa Rowther, 42 Mad. 296 Ayling & Krishnan JJ. held that if a preliminary decree in a partition suit either "intentionally or inadvertently" omitted to direct an enquiry into future profits a subsequent application for directing such an enquiry was incompetent & the Court had no power to pass a final decree awarding such profits. This decision goes the whole length of the petitioner's contention, but its correctness has been questioned in later decisions of this Court & in the arguments before us.
(3.)It is necessary at the outset to distinguish between three different types of oases in which a question of profits or mesne profits might arise : (1) Suits for ejectment or recovery of possession of immoveable property from a person in possession without title, together with a claim for past or past & future mesne profits. (2) Suits for partition by one or more tenants-in-common against others with a claim for account of past or past & future profits. (3) Suits for partition by a member of a joint Hindu family with a claim for an account from the manager. In the first case, the possession of the defts. not being lawful, the plff. is entitled to recover "mesne profits" as defined in Section 2, Clause (12), Civ. P. C., such profits being really in the nature of damages. In the second case, the possession & receipt of profits by the deft, not being wrongful the plff's. remedy is to have an account of such profits making all just allowances in favour of the collecting tenant in common. In the third case, the plff. must take the joint family property as it exists at the date of the demand for partition and is not entitled to open up past accounts or claim relief on the ground of past inequality of enjoyment of the profit, except where the manager has been guilty of fraudulent conduct or misappropriation. The plff. would, however, be in the position of a tenant-in-common from the date of severance in status & his rights would have to be worked out on that basis.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.