Court set aside the Munsiff's order dismissing an application for mesne profits. It clarified that Order 20 Rule 12 CPC limits claims from the decree date, not suing date, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration after hearing both parties.
Order of Munsiff set aside; matter remitted for fresh consideration after hearing both sides.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2008 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1930 CRP.No. 324 of 2008() --------------------------------(AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE MUNSIFF, OTTAPPALAM IN E.P.NO.39/2007 IN O.S.NO.535 OF 2001 DTD.25/09/2007)
PETITIONER: PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:
--------------------------------------------------------
MOIDEENKUTTY, S/O KANKADIYIL MOIDU HAJI CHUNANGAD AMSOM, DESOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MUHAMMED, S/O MOIDU HAJI, KANKADIYIL, CHUNAGAD, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD.
BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SRI.V.B.RAMANUNNI MENON
RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:
------------------------------------------------------------------
KHADEEJA, W/O KANKADIYIL MAMMU, CHUNANGAD AMSOM, DESOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 324 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th day of April, 2008.
This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Munsiff, Ottapalam whereby he has dismissed an application for mesne profits in a suit for recovery of possession on the strength of title. The learned Munsiff held that the maximum period for which the mesne profits can be claimed by the decree holder is three years and as the claim is against the existing provision and so he dismissed the execution petition.
CRP NO. 324 of 2008
-:2:-
as per the provision the decree holder will not be entitled to get mesne profits beyond 15.8.2006. Therefore the learned Munsiff was wrong in dismissing the application and hence the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court below for fresh consideration after hearing both sides. After the appearance of the revision petitioner before the Court, the Court shall give notice to the defendants in the suit, fix a hearing date and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The revision petitioner is directed to appear before the Court on 23.5.2008.
The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the restriction on claiming mesne profits beyond three years applies retroactively to a suit filed years before the relevant rule interpretation.
Whether the learned Munsiff erred in dismissing an application for mesne profits based on a three-year limitation.
Whether a matter dismissed on grounds of limitation needs remittal for fresh consideration after hearing both sides.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
MOIDEENKUTTY, S/O KANKADIYIL MOIDU HAJI
KHADEEJA, W/O KANKADIYIL MAMMU
M.N. KRISHNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
