Supreme Court clarifies Mesne Profits Inquiry Timeline in Property Dispute: Choudappa vs. Choudappa (2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 03 September 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 691

Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan

Can a court-ordered inquiry for mesne profits be initiated years after the original decree for possession? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning a property dispute where the determination of mesne profits was delayed. The core issue was whether an application for mesne profits, filed long after the decree for possession, was barred by limitation. The bench, comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice R. Mahadevan, delivered a unanimous judgment, clarifying the timeline for such inquiries.

Case Background

In 1963, the respondents filed a suit for recovery of possession and correction of mutation entries. The suit was decreed in their favor on 12 July 1973. The decree specifically directed an inquiry into mesne profits from the date of the suit, i.e., 24 September 1963, as per Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The petitioners’ appeal against the decree was dismissed in 1980, thus the decree attained finality. The respondents executed the decree in 1993 and obtained possession of the suit property in 2005. In 2014, the respondents filed an application, purportedly under Section 141 of the CPC or Order XX Rule 12 of the CPC, seeking determination of mesne profits as directed by the 1973 decree. The petitioners then filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, arguing that the application for mesne profits was barred by limitation.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court rejected the petitioners’ application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, which sought to dismiss the respondents’ application for mesne profits as time-barred. The petitioners then filed a revision petition before the High Court, which was also dismissed. The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision, stating that the application for mesne profits was not a fresh proceeding but a continuation of the original suit. The petitioners then filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which deals with decrees for possession and mesne profits. Order XX Rule 12 of the CPC states:

“12. Decree for possession and mesne profits.—
(1) Where a suit is for the recovery of possession of immovable property and for rent or mesne profits, the Court may pass a decree—
(a) for the possession of the property;
(b) for the rents which have accrued on the property during the period prior to the institution of the suit or directing an inquiry as to such rent;
(ba) for the mesne profits or directing an inquiry as to such mesne profits;
(c) directing an inquiry as to rent or mesne profits from the institution of the suit until—
(i) the delivery of possession to the decree-holder,
(ii) the relinquishment of possession by the judgment-debtor with notice to the decree-holder through the Court, or
(iii) the expiration of three years from the date of the decree, whichever, event first occurs.
(2) Where an inquiry is directed under clause (b) or clause (c), a final decree in respect of the rent or mesne profits shall be passed in accordance with the result of such inquiry.”

This provision allows the court to order an inquiry into mesne profits from the date of the suit until the delivery of possession. The court also noted that the decree from the Trial Court had specifically directed an inquiry regarding future mesne profits from the date of the suit, i.e., 24-09-1963, under Order 20 Rule 12(a) of the CPC.

Arguments

Petitioners’ Arguments:

• The petitioners argued that the respondents’ application for mesne profits was essentially a second execution of the decree and was filed decades after the decree attained finality.
• They contended that the application was barred by limitation because of the delay.
• The petitioners relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. North Eastern Chemicals Industries (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s. Ashok Paper Mill (Assam) Ltd. & Anr. to argue that even where no specific limitation is provided, proceedings must be initiated within a reasonable time.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that their application was not a second execution or a fresh suit but a reminder to the court to complete the inquiry for mesne profits as directed in the original decree.
• They contended that the proceedings under Order XX Rule 12 of the CPC are a continuation of the suit and do not have a specific limitation period.
• They submitted that the court is obliged to undertake the inquiry for mesne profits and that the application was merely a reminder for the court to fulfill its duty.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues but addressed the following core question:

1. Whether the application for determination of mesne profits, filed years after the decree for possession, is barred by limitation.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issue:

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan and Anr. Vs. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan and Ors. [2022 (16) SCC 71]*, applying the analogy of the preparation of the final decree pursuant to a preliminary decree for partition, stating that there is no limitation for initiating proceedings for a final decree.
• The Court distinguished M/s. North Eastern Chemicals Industries (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s. Ashok Paper Mill (Assam) Ltd. & Anr.*, stating that it does not provide an absolute rule for limitation in such matters and that it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.
• The Court emphasized that Order XX Rule 12 of the CPC obliges the court to conduct an inquiry for mesne profits, which is a continuation of the suit.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the understanding that the inquiry for mesne profits is an integral part of the original suit and not a separate proceeding. The Court emphasized the following:

• The court’s obligation to conduct the inquiry under Order XX Rule 12 of the CPC.
• The fact that the inquiry is a continuation of the suit and not a fresh execution.
• The absence of a specific limitation period for such inquiries.
• The need to complete the process of justice initiated by the original decree.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on legal principles and the interpretation of Order XX Rule 12 of the CPC, with less emphasis on the specific factual aspects of the case.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, upholding the decisions of the Trial Court and the High Court. The Court reasoned that the inquiry for mesne profits is a continuation of the original suit and not a fresh proceeding. The Court stated that the law does not provide a specific time limit for initiating such proceedings and that the court is obliged to undertake this exercise on its own. The Court observed that the application for mesne profits was merely a reminder to the court to complete the inquiry as directed by the original decree. The Supreme Court held that the proceedings are not barred by limitation and are in the nature of preparation of the final decree.

The Court quoted from the original judgment:
“An inquiry be held regarding future mesne profits of the said suit lands from the date of the suit, that is 24-9-1963 under Order 20 Rule 12(a) C.P.C.”

The Court further clarified,
“Now, such an inquiry is nothing but a continuation of the suit and is in the nature of preparation of the final decree and as such, it cannot be said that any application moved as a reminder for completing the inquiry is barred by limitation or is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay or laches.”

The Court also noted,
“In fact, after the passing of the preliminary decree, the Trial Court is obliged to proceed for the preparation of the final decree and should not adjourn the matter sine die. There is no need to file any separate application for the preparation of the final decree.”

The Court emphasized that the inquiry for mesne profits is a continuation of the suit and that the court is obliged to undertake this exercise. The Court distinguished the case of M/s. North Eastern Chemicals Industries (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s. Ashok Paper Mill (Assam) Ltd. & Anr., stating that while it suggests that steps should be taken within a reasonable time, it does not provide an absolute rule for limitation in such matters.

Key Takeaways

• An application for the determination of mesne profits, filed as a reminder to complete the inquiry directed in the original decree, is not barred by limitation.
• The inquiry for mesne profits under Order XX Rule 12 of the CPC is considered a continuation of the original suit and not a fresh proceeding.
• Courts are obliged to undertake the inquiry for mesne profits as directed in the decree, and there is no specific time limit for initiating such proceedings.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the petitioners to participate in the inquiry before the Trial Court for the determination of mesne profits.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an inquiry for mesne profits, as directed in a decree, is a continuation of the original suit and is not subject to a specific limitation period. This clarifies that the court’s obligation to conduct the inquiry remains even if a significant time has passed since the original decree. This decision reinforces the principle that the court must complete the process of justice initiated by the original decree.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Choudappa vs. Choudappa clarifies that an application for determination of mesne profits, filed as a reminder to complete the court-ordered inquiry, is not barred by limitation. The Court emphasized that such inquiries are a continuation of the original suit and that courts are obligated to complete them, regardless of the time elapsed since the original decree. This decision ensures that the process of justice initiated by the original decree is fully completed.