GOVINDA PILLAI Vs. PADMANABHA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioners are respondents 3 to 10 (additional plaintiffs 3 to 10) in I. A. 1064/70 in O.S. 347/1953 of the Munsiff Court, Shertallay. The petition was filed by the defendants 5, 6 and 7 (respondents 1 to 3 herein) under Sections 144 and 151 of the C.P.C. for re-delivery of the suit property with mesne profits. The learned Munsiff ordered the plaintiffs to pay Rs. 2011.50 to the defendants as interest on value of improvements to compensate the loss of profits suffered by them on account of the dispossession made without paying the value of improvements.

(2.) Suit was one for redemption of mortgage. That suit was decreed on depositing the mortgage amount and value of certain improvements. Plaintiff filed appeal A.S. 644/62 contending that they are not liable to pay value of improvements. Appeal was allowed holding that plaintiffs are not liable to pay value of improvements. Property was taken delivery by the plaintiffs on the deposit of mortgage amount on 31-3-1965. Defendants filed S.A. 573/66 before this Court against the judgement in A.S. 644/62. Second appeal was allowed and the case was remanded to ascertain the value of improvements. The Munsiff Court determined the value of improvements to the tune of Rs. 1561.35. A.S. 95/70 filed by the plaintiffs challenging the quantification of value of improvements was dismissed. S.A. 214/73 filed before this Court was also dismissed on 25-10-1976. Immediately, the value of improvements was deposited by the plaintiffs on 8-11-1976. Defendants filed I.A. 1064/70 to get redelivery of the property from the plaintiffs alleging that they have no right to get possession of the property from them without paying the value of improvements. They contended that possession of the property by the plaintiffs is unlawful and so they are liable to surrender possession to them with mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 700/- and interest at 6% per annum. It is on that petition that the learned Munsiff passed the impugned order.

(3.) Counsel for the respondents raised the preliminary objection that the revision petition is not maintainable as the order impugned has been passed on a petition under S.144, C.P.C. Counsel submitted that the only course open to the revision petitioners is to file appeal and the revision filed is illconceived. He submits that determination of any question within S.144 is a decree and against it the aggrieved party only file appeal.