Mesne Profits

2023 CLC 895 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S.8Suit for partitionPreliminary decreeExecutionMesne profitsEntitlement

Petitioners were aggrieved of refusal of respondent to vacate portion of suit property in her possession, in the light of preliminary decree passed by Trial Court

Plea raised by respondent was that she had retained possession in lieu of partition of agriculture land still to be partitioned

Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court declined to deliver possession to petitioners

Validity

Fact that agriculture land remained to be partitioned or sold had no co-relation to settlement and distribution of shares in relation to other properties that had formed part of partition suit

Preliminary decree was a final decree in relation to properties in relation to which respective shares stood distributed between co-sharers

Merely because it was a preliminary decree in relation to agriculture land that remained to be distributed and/or sold did not make such decree a preliminary decree in relation to properties, the distribution of which had already taken place and constituted a matter that required no further adjudication

High Court directed the respondent to hand over possession to petitioner and set aside orders passed by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court

High Court declared that petitioners were entitled to receive rent from respondent to be determined by Executing Court for the period respondent declined handing over of the possession till such possession would be handed over

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

2021 MLD 1983 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

O.VIII, R.5(1)Allegation not denied specificallyEstoppelIllegal occupationMesne profit

Appellant alleged the entitlement of peaceful possession and benefits (mesne profit) of suit house being the lawful owner thereof

Respondent filing copies of lease agreement executed by him with different persons from time to time

Claim of the appellant qua mesne profit remained unchallenged, therefore, the same would be deemed to be admitted and was to be accepted as such

High court declared the appellant entitled to recover handsome amount per month as mesne profit qua the suit house.

2015 PLD 481 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 12Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 55Suit for specific performance of agreement to sellDecrease in market value of suit propertyDamages, claim forAdvance amount, forfeiture ofScopeMesne profitsScopeVendee could seek relief of specific performance of contract and also for damages in addition, or as substitution

Vendor had himself confined his rights to the extent of forfeiture of advance amount and he was normally entitled for the same

Seller could also claim damages in addition, but such damages should be specifically pleaded and should be proved

Mere words of decreased in market value of property in question would not be sufficient to entitle seller for such damages

Burden was upon the defendants to prove their claim for damages

Nothing was on record except a reference to admission of the plaintiff that market value of suit property had reduced

Defendants could not be held entitled for damages in absence of any evidence with reference to reduction in market value

Delivery of possession and change of ownership through a registered document would complete the sale

One should possess a clear title in his favour to execute a registered sale deed and should be capable to put buyer into possession of property

Plaintiff had failed to establish that he was prepared for obtaining title on relevant date from the defendants who had marketable title

Defendants were competent to resort to penal clause of agreement i.e. forfeiting the advance money

Agreement had only permitted forfeiture of 'advance money' but not whole payment made towards sale consideration

Defendants were entitled to forfeit such amount only, not the other payment subsequently made by the plaintiff as part payment

Second agreement did not change the 'status and nature of the advance money'

Defendants were bound to return the amount so received by them after deducting 'advance money' and to establish that they were unauthorizedly kept out of possession of suit property

Failure of defendants to take possession or asked the plaintiff to deliver the same who, otherwise, was ready to deliver possession of suit property was sufficient to disentitle defendants for mesne profits.

2010 YLR 42 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2(d) & 5Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.2(12)Mesne profitspetitioner's possession in the pre-emption suit had been protected subject to deposit of mesne profits on annual basis

High Court ordered to disburse the mesne profits to vendee if it had been deposited by the pre-emptor otherwise executing Court might assess same and recover from the pre-emptor through process of execution.

2002 PLD 511 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Mesne ProfitsIssue of mesne profits invariable raises the question of title

Right to possess and occupy immovable property and right to enjoy profit thereof on the basis of some right/entitlement thereto; are two different and distinct causes of action.

2000 MLD 1431 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Mesne ProfitsShare in suit land was denied on the basis of gift-deedGift-deed in question was declared as illegal and voidEffect

Party relying on the gift deed was liable to account for the share of income of the other party for a period of three years prior to filing of the suit.

1979 SCMR 15 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

O. VI, r. 17 read with Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 120Mesne profits-Amendment of plaint - Limitation - Amendments not taking away legal rights already accrued to defendants nor changing complexion of suits-May be allowed in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation in suitable cases-Mesne profits being permissible of award in fit cases without specific prayers having been made in such regard, question of limitation irrelevant-Amendment in plaint sought to include prayer for grant of mesne profits, held, rightly allowed by trial Court.-[Plaint-Limitation].

1955 PLD 388 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 47-Mesne profitsRealisation of-Such profts not being awarded by decree (which seas for possession pure and simple), but judgment-debtor furnishing security for their payment in order to get stay of execution in appeal-Realisable in execution proceedings and not by a separate suit.