INDIA ELECTRIC WORKS LIMITED Vs. JAMES MANTOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by certificate from a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in which the sole question for determination is whether the suit was barred by limitation.

(2.) The material facts may be stated. The appellant before us was the defendant in a suit for recovery of damages with interest and costs. The suit was decreed by the trial judge and that decree has been upheld by the High Court. The defendant was a tenant under the predecessor of the plaintiffs in respect of the shed and structures described in Schedule A of the plaint. In or about the year 1939 the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs filed a title suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Alipore for ejectment and damages. A compromise took place between the parties but the defendant did not vacate the premises in terms of the compromise and continued to remain in occupation of the same. The property was requisitioned under Rule 75-A of the Defence of India Rules and Government took its possession on February 2, 1944. It was dere quisitioned on November 21, 1945. For the period from February 2, 1944 to November 21, 1945 the plaintiffs received monthly compensation from the government at the rate of Rs. 350/-. For the period of the defendant's alleged wrongful occupation the plaintiffs filed two suits against the defendant. The first was for and recovery of damages upto February 1, 1944 and the second was for damages from November 22, 1945 upto November 21, 1948. The plaintiffs also claimed future damages till recovery of possession although the suit was not one for possession. The suits were decreed by the learned Subordinate Judge in December 1951 at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month for the entire period of claim. In other words the claim for future mesne profits was also allowed. On appeal the High Court disallowed the claim for future mesne profits and reduced the rate to Rs. 200/- per month. The judgment disposing of those appeals along with certain other appeals which arose out of a suit filed by the defendant with which we are not concerned in the present appeal is reported in India Electric Works Ltd. v. Mrs. B. S. Mantosh, AIR 1956 Cal 148 at page No. 155. This is what was observed in that judgment with regard to the decree relating to future mesne profits at page 155:-

(3.) The defendant appealed to the High Court. The High Court considered the question of the applicability of Section 14 and held that the plaintiff could take advantage of it. The rate of damages which had been determined by the trial Court was also upheld. The admitted and proved facts are that the claim made in the present suit was included in the previous money suit No. 28 of 1948 and a decree had been passed by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs for the entire claim including the claim for future damages. The plaintiffs were only required to pay additional court fee as provided by the Indian court Fees Act for the claim relating to future damages and the plaintiffs had in fact paid the required amount of additional Court fee. The High Court in the judgment mentioned before and in the portion extracted there from had negatived the claim for future damages on the sole ground that no decree could be granted for recovery of compensation after the date of suit or after the date of the decree in a pure money suit. In other words it was held that under the law the Court was not competent to decree such a suit.