Devi Ram etc. vs Ram Rattan and Another

D.B. Lal, J.—This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the District Judge, Mahasu, confirming on appeal the judgment of the Senior Subordinate Judge and decreeing the suit of Ram Rattan for recovery of Rs. 1500/- as mesne profits in respect of a certain parcel of land said to be in wrongful occupation of Devi Ram and others. The Plaintiff Ram Rattan came to Court with the allegations that he was owner of the land and that Devi Ram and others started occupation of the land as trespassers. It was further stated that in December, 1962 Ram Rattan had filed a civil suit against Devi Ram and others who were held to be trespassers and a decree for possession was granted in favour of Ram Rattan. The Plaintiff being entitled to possession claimed mesne profits for three years and the suit for Rs. 2,000/- was filed with an additional prayer for mesne profits till the date of the delivery of the possession.

The ownership of the Plaintiff was admitted by the Defendants but the claim for mesne profits was denied. It was stated that the Defendants were the tenants and although the decree for possession was passed by the civil Court the same was under appeal and as such should not be adhered to. A plea u/s 30 of the Himachal Pradesh Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953, was availed of, inasmuch as it was contended that the Revenue Court alone had the jurisdiction to grant a decree for rent and no mesne profits were payable to the Plaintiff. At any rate it was contended that the claim was excessive and so much amount could not be awarded.

The learned Senior Subordinate Judge decreed the suit for Rs. 1500/- and repelled the plea regarding jurisdiction. Devi Ram and others came in appeal before the District Judge and there too they were unsuccessful. The decree for mesne profits was maintained. They have now come up in second appeal.

It is contended in the foremost that Section 30 of the Himachal Pradesh Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953, applied and that the civil Court had no jurisdiction. A bare reading of Section 30 discloses that in a suit where a person is in possession of the land without the consent of the "landlord" he is liable to pay "rent" for the use and occupation of that land. In this case neither the Plaintiff pleaded nor was held to be "landlord" qua any person nor did he claim "rent" from any one. The claim was for mesne profits which are defined in the CPC Section 2(12) as those profits which the person in wrongful possession of such property actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received therefrom. Thus "mesne profits" essentially refer to profits accrued from land and do not refer to "rent" at all. The frame of the suit was obviously for ''mesne profits'' and not for rent. The Plaintiff claimed to be owner and not landlord. Therefore, the Plaintiff claimed mesne profits as owner and Section 30 of the aforesaid Act was not at all applicable. I am fortified for this view from a decision of the Judicial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh reported in Devi Ram and Another Vs. Murli and Others, The learned Counsel relied upon Rattan Das v. Battan Singh AIR 1918 Lah 185, Inder Singh Phagu Singh v. Lal Singh Sunder Singh AIR 1955 N.U.C. 1351 and Gobinda Singh v. Bhag Singh AIR 1955 N.U.C. 2503, I am not very much impressed by these decisions. The learned Judges in these cases have, respectfully, failed to notice the distinction between "rent" and "mesne profits"--both expressions defined in the revenue law, and the Civil Procedure Code. In Rattan Das (supra) the Plaintiff claimed to be ''landlord'' as he was successor-in-interest of the previous landlord and, therefore, the frame of the suit essentially fell within Section 14 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. Here in this case the Plaintiff never came to Court as ''landlord'' nor could it be proved that there was any sitting tenant or that some body occupied the land while displacing that tenant. As regards the finding of trespasser the same became res judicate due to the previous decision of the civil Court. It has not been shown as to whether the said decision has been replaced by any decision in favour of the Defendants. Therefore, the present suit did not fall u/s 30 of the Himachal Pradesh Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953. Rather it was an ordinary suit under general law and CPC applied. The jurisdiction was rightly exercised by the Civil Court.

The next point of contention is regarding the quantum of mesne profits. The learned Counsel contended that the amount awarded was excessive because no regard was made of the expenses incurred by the person in occupation. I find just the contrary in the judgment. The learned District Judge considered the entire evidence and also took regard of the fact as to whether any expenses were incurred by the person in occupation. Some allowance was made for that expense and only thereafter the amount of mesne profits was discovered. Moreover it would be a finding of fact for the second appellate Court not to disturb, unless any compelling reason was pleaded or proved which has not been done.

In Faqir Singh Vs. Gurbachan Singh and Others, in a similar situation it was held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court u/s 9 is not lost for a suit for recovery of mesne profits in respect of the disputed land wrongfully occupied by a person. The present suit is for mesne profits and no reference is made to the landlord or to the tenant so as to attract Section 14 of the Punjab Tenancy Act which is nothing but Section 30 of the Act with which we are concerned.

There is thus no merit in this appeal. The suit was filed for mesne profits and the civil Court had the jurisdiction. The amount awarded cannot be considered excessive. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs.