VITHOBA KUNBI Vs. PYRELAL TELI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had dispossessed them on 1st June 1930. Their plaint was presented on 15th October 1930. It is not shown that they have received any profits before that date or that the defendants should have received any profits. The plaintiffs claimed Rs. 400 on the ground that they had been put to a loss of Rs. 400 on account of the loss of the crops of the land.

(2.) IN my opinion the suit was premature. The plaintiffs at the date on which the suit was brought had sustained no damage. The applicant referred to the fact that in Ramgopal v. Dhanji Jadhavji AIR 1928 PC 200 damages were calculated with reference to a profit which would have been received in future. But in that case and in Abdul Karim v. Rustomji the suit was for damages on account of breach of contract, which took place on a particular date. Assuming in favour of the applicant that Article 39, Lim. Act, applies to this claim, the trespass was a continuing trespass. At the time this suit was brought, it was quite possible that the plaintiffs might recover possession in time to reap some benefit from the land. The applicant relied on Ramsami Reddi v. Authi Lahshmi Ammal (1911) 34 Mad 502. But in that case the learned Judges clearly held that limitation ran from the period when profits might have been received. Had they held that the cause of action accrued prior to such date, the suit should have been dismissed. No cause of action with regard to the claim brought existed at the date of the suit. The judgment of the learned Small Cause Court Judge is opposed to well-known principles. The decree of that Court is set aside and the suit is dismissed : costs on the non-applicants : counsel's fee Rs. 30.