KUPPUSAMY AIYAR Vs. VENKATARAMIER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which has been referred to a Full Bench is whether, on the facts of this case, the claim of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 95 of 1898 for mesne profits in respect of the period between the institution of O.S. No. 21 of 1804 and the decree therein is res judicata or is barred by the provisions of Section 373 of the Code. The facts are as follows: On January 26 1894 the plaintiff instituted a suit (O. S. No. 21 of 1894) in which he claimed the recovery of possession of certain land, mesne profits for the three faslies prior to the institution of the suit and future mesne profits until delivery of possession. This suit was dismissed. The plaintiff preferred an appeal and in his memorandum of appeal stated that mesne profits would be made the subject of a separate suit. The Lower appellate Court reversed the judgment of the Court of First Instance and allowed the plaintiff's claim with mesne profits as claimed in the plaint. The defendants then preferred a second appeal to this Court, and the plaintiff put in a memorandum of objections stating that the Lower Appellate Court ought to have allowed interest on the mesne profits and ought to have distinctly provided in the decree for mesne profits subsequent to the institution of the suit. This Court dismissed, the defendant's second appeal on the ground that the statement in the memorandum of appeal by the plaintiff to the lower appellate Court with reference to mesne profits being made the subject of a separate suit referred only to future mesne profits.

(2.) On February 26th, 1898, the plaintiff in Suit No. 21 of 1894 instituted a suit (O.S. No. 95 of 1898) against the defendants to the suit of 1894 in which he claimed mesne profits from the date of the plaint in the suit of 1894 up to the date of delivery of the lands for the recovery of which that suit had been brought. The suit was dismissed by the District Munsif upon the ground that the claim was res judicata and the lower appellate Court affirmed the decree of the Munsif.

(3.) In support of the contention that the claim made in the suit of 1398 for mesne profits for the period between the date of institution of the suit of 1894 and decree therein is barred, it was argued that the dismissal of the suit of 1894 by the Munsiff amounted to an adverse decision against the plaintiff as regards his claim for future mesne profits, and that inasmuch as he had not appealed against this decision he was bound by it and that by stating in his memorandum of appeal to the lower appellate Court that his claim for future mesne profits, would be made the subject of another suit, he could not prevent the operation of law of the res judicata. In our opinion, the claim to the mesne profits made in the suit of 1898 for the period in question is not barred. It is conceded that the plaintiff is not precluded from claiming in the suit of 1898 " future" mesne profits for the period between the date of the decree in the suit of 1894 and delivery of possession. On principle it seems difficult to draw a distinction between the period from the date of suit up to decree and the period after decree and before delivery of possession.