DUKREEYA MEHRA Vs. MUKTEE MAHRIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The applicant Dukriya filed a suit against the non-applicant Mt. Mukti in the Small Cause Court at Seoni. The plaint alleges that the defendant; was in wrongful possession of the plaintiff's field until she was ejected through the Court. The defendant enjoyed the crops; the plaintiff, who was prevented from reaping the crops of the field, is therefore entitled to the value of the crops for the years in question. In the prayer it is asked that a decree should be passed on account of mesne profits-The learned Small Cause Court Judge, relying on Lachman Rao v. Waman Rao (1903) 160 PLR 1, held that the suit was not cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. He referred to a later decision. Paga Patil v. Ishwardas AIR 1925 Nag 327, where it was held that a claim on facts very similar to those stated by the plaintiff-applicant was cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. The Judge who decided Paga Patil v. Iswardas AIR 1925 Nag 327, clearly stated that a suit for the profits of immovable property was-triable by a Small Cause Court. It seems, clear that the view taken in that case differs from the view taken in Lachman Rao v. Waman Rao (1903) 160 PLR 1, and the question has therefore been considered by a Bench of two Judges. The majority of the Judges of the very strong Bench, which decided Kunja Behary Singh v. Madhub Chandra Ghose (1896) 23 Cal 884 (FB), held that a suit for mesne profits was cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. Now, mesne profits are defined by Section 2 (12), Civil. P. C., as Those profits which the person in wrongful possession of such property actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received therefrom, together with interest on such profits.

(2.) A suit for mesne profits, then, may be (A) a suit for profits which such a person has actually received, or (B) a suit for profits actually received and also for profits which might have been received, or (C) a suit for profits which might have been received: the plaintiff can certainly confine his claim to profits actually received. We may first consider suits of the type A. Schedule 2, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, details the suits excepted from the cognizance of Court of Small Causes. Article 31 of this schedule mentions one class of these suits: Any other suit for an account including ... a suit for the profits of immovable property belonging to the plaintiff which have been wrongfully received by the defendant.

(3.) IN a suit for mesne profits of type A the profits actually received are the measure. It may be that such a suit is a suit for damages, but in view of the definition of mesne profits it is a suit for the profits of the immovable property: if it is a suit for damages, it is a suit for the profits of immovable property based on the allegation that the damage caused to the plaintiff is neither more nor less than the profits of the immovable property. We add that, if a suit for mesne profits of the type A is necessarily a suit for damages, the suit for profits of immovable property, to which Article 31 refers, must be a suit for damages. However, the question whether such a suit is or is not a suit for damages does not seem of importance for our purpose. The inclusion of this class of suits in Article 31 appears to be due to its form and not to its nature. In Dokshina Mohun Roy v. Saroda Mohun Roy (1893) 21 Cal 142 their Lordships of the Privy Council with reference to the proprietor of an estate which is afterwards adjudged to his opponent remarked: Of course he is bound to account for mesne profits, for all rents and profits which he has received, or which without wilful default he might have received.