LAWS(CAL)-1963-4-9

INDIA ELECTRIC WORKS LTD Vs. JAMES MANTOSH

Decided On April 11, 1963
INDIA ELECTRIC WORKS LTD. Appellant
V/S
JAMES MANTOSH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant before us was the defendant in a suit for recovery of damages with interest and costs. The suit has been decreed in part by the learned trial Judge. Hence this appeal by the defendant. The material facts lie within a short compass and they may be stated as follows:

(2.) 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 plaintiffs' said predecessor filed Title Suit No. 8 of 1939 in the Sixth Court of the Subordinate Judge, Alipore, for ejectment and damages. The suit was eventually compromised between the parties, but the defendant company did not vacate the disputed property in terms of the said compromise but remained in wrongful occupation of the same. While they were in such wrongful occupation, the property was requisitioned under Rule 75-A of the Defence of India Rules and the Government took possession of the same on February 2, 1944. The property was derequisitioned on November 21, 1945, and for the interval or intervening period, that is, from February 2, 1944, to November 21, 1945, the plaintiffs received monthly compensation from the Government at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month. For the rest of the period of the defendant's alleged wrongful occupation, the plaintiffs filed two Money suits against the defendant, viz., Money suit No. 1 of 1946 and Money suit No. 28 of 1948, in the above Sixth Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore, the first for recovery of damages upto February 2, or, more, correctly February 1, 1944, and the second from November 22, 1945, upto November 21, 1948, and for future damages till recovery of possession.

(3.) The suits were decreed by the learned Subordinate Judge on December 15, 1951, at Rs. 300/-per month for the entire period of claim, that is, Upto recovery of possession, and, under the Court's direction, the plaintiffs paid additional Court-fees for the claim for future damages, that is, for the period from November 22, 1948, up till recovery of possession.