Introduction
Natural
law grants the essential rights to establish accountability for civil rights
violations and mistreatment of another person's real property since
mistreatment of real property includes the right to seek restitution for
damages. A person who is in unauthorised or illegal possession is said to be in
"mesne profits," which refers to the loss or recompense an owner may
be able to recover.
Thus,
the core of the mesne profits’ accusation and the liability of the illegitimate
owner is unlawful property ownership. As a result, the responsibility to pay
mesne profit ends when the land is actually in your possession. A constructive
right that can be used to prevent the infringement of private legal law is the
benefit of Mesne. Its primary goal is to make up for the genuine owner of the
property who has been denied possession and the chance to enjoy it. The
principle mostly pertains to making up for past wrongdoing.
The
Hon'ble Court also narrowed and interpreted the meaning of a mesne profits
claim in the case of K. B. Singh v. M. D. U.
Co-Operative Association Ltd[1].,
holding that the term's definition makes it clear that it can only be made with
reference to immovable property.
Mesne Profit: The Conceptual Origin
The concept of mesne profits traces back to the medieval period and can be explained through the following chart-:
- The feudal system- The King was the owner of all the land
- He would let out lands to barons in promise of provision of soldiers to raise an army
- This changed by charging of rent for letting out the land
- The system grew in complexity as the barons further sublet the lands to tenant farmers in exchange of rent (which was usually in kind plus they kept some for themselves.)
Mesne Profits are described
in Section 2(12) of the Code of Civil Procedure as:
Mesne profits of
property are defined as those profits that the person in wrongful possession of
the property actually received or could have obtained with reasonable
diligence, along with interest on those profits; however, profits attributable
to improvements made by the person in wrongful possession are not included.
Mesne profits essentially refer to the fees that must be paid or the illegal use and occupation of real estate. A lessee, tenant, or licensee who occupies the property for a length of time longer than that for which authorization was granted, or whose occupancy is terminated by termination, revocation, or order of the court, is considered to be in unlawful possession and is responsible for paying mesne profits.
- The first need is that the land's current owner is holding onto the property illegally.
- The clause includes interest on those gains as well, but it is clear that it does not include any benefit from improvements done to the property by someone who is in illegal possession.
A
crucial component of mesne earnings is interest.[1]
The decision to grant it or not rests solely with the Courts. [2]Furthermore,
the plaintiff must specifically request the interest on mesne profits before it
can be awarded. As a result, it is an essential claim rather than a right. An
application for restitution may be used to assert a claim under Order 20 Rule
12 of the Code of Civil Procedure[3] and
Section 144 of the Code.
Conditions for awarding Mesne Profit
Mesne profits can be awarded out in following:
- When there is specific claim: The court has the authority to decide on such a claim for mesne profits when a particular petition for mesne profits is made. In cases for partition, eviction, restitution, and other matters, an express claim for the same is typically stated.
- If a case is covered by Order 20 Rule 12: Even though a particular petition has not been made for them, the court may still decide on a claim for future mesne earnings. But only when the complaint is covered by Order 20, Rule 12.[1]
Any
earnings made by the defendant as a result of his or her unlawful possession
are considered in the calculation of mesne profit[1].
The time limit for its computation begins when the defendant obtained the
improper possession, and it must be completed by the trial court.
Considerations include factual conditions, justice, and any costs incurred by
the defendants in order to generate profits.
The Court's calculations are only approximations or broad estimates. An award of mesne earnings is influenced by two main factors:
- The type of profit allegedly made
- The stage at which a Mesne Profit claim has been made
Future Mesne Profits: Even if it hasn't been formally requested, the court has the power to recommend looking into prospective mesne profits[2], particularly in circumstances of partition where the court is obligated to do so. The Supreme Court made the declaration in 1963. The courts are given the ability to award future mesne revenues for two reasons:
- The plaintiff has no legal claim at the time the lawsuit was filed.
- The plaintiff is unable to assert this claim, value it, or pay the associated court costs.
- The presence of a motivating fact.
- The claim must be specified and fairly valued.
(The first two requirements are necessary for past mesne profits.)
Stage at which Mesne Profit claim has been raised.
The stage at which the plea for a decree is decided restricts the Courts' latitude. If a court declines to "deliberately omit" or denies a mesne profits award during the preliminary decree stage, it cannot do so during the final decree stage. The same is not true for future earnings, where the preliminary decree's silence does not prevent the court from ordering an investigation at the final stage.
Limitation on awarding mesne profits
There are two types of constraints that we can observe:
- Time Restrictions: The Code's Order 20 Rule 12 limits the award of mesne earnings to three years. The time frame begins on the day the preliminary decree was issued. 35 The Supreme Court of India construed Order 20, Rule 12(c) in Fateh Chand's case to suggest that the mesne earnings must be granted up until the date when the immovable property was delivered.
- Interest-rate-based restriction: When distributing mesne profits, there is a 6% cap at the most.
It is intuitively obvious that the burden of proof lies with the party making the claim, in this case, the Plaintiff, and it is also a well-established legal concept. The steps required for this are:
- Plaintiff must demonstrate and establish ownership.
- Due to the Defendant's illegal possession, he or she was deprived.
The
Madras High Court reaffirmed this in the case of
Ramakka v. Nagesam. The complainant may also establish a claim for greater
profits by showing that the property's illegal occupant did not exercise due
diligence, according to the court's further addition.
Appointment of Commissioner
When
it does not appear reasonable to the court for either party to do so, a commissioner
is appointed, defined as an impartial person between the parties who is
appointed by the court to collect the rents, issues, or profits of the property
or other subject in dispute.[1]
The
court may, in the exercise of his or her discretion, appoint a receiver or
commissioner to determine the amount of mesne profits due.[2]
The
word "may" is not used in an obligatory manner.
Case Laws
Mohammad Amin & Ors. v. Vakil Ahmed & Ors.
FACTS: The only question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether mesne profits should be given under Order XX Rule 12, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, if the appellant had not expressly prayed for an investigation pertaining to mesne profits. The learned Solicitor General, speaking on behalf of the appellant, argued that there was no need for mesne profits as such, but that the claim for mesne profits must be included within the expression, "awarding possession and occupation of the property aforesaid together with all the rights appertaining thereto."
HELD: The Supreme Court holding the High Court’s judgement as erroneous ruled that the plaintiff’s contention regarding inclusion of mesne profits within the given expression cannot be allowed and therefore the provision in regard to the same will have to be obliterated.
Chhaganmull Agarwalla v. Amanathulla Mohammad Prodhan
FACTS: In this case, the only question with respect to mesne profits was whether the defendant is entitled to pay mesne profits for the land which remained under attachment under the requirements of Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
JUDGEMENT: The Hon'ble Court ruled that the "wrongful possession of the defendant is the very core of the argument for a mesh profit and the very basis of the decree therefor. Applying this concept, it is difficult to believe that, at the time the property was under annexation by the execution of the decree under Section 146, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and this Court was in custody on behalf of the legitimate owners, that is, the claimants in the present case, that the defendants were in possession of the land. Consequently, if the defendant is not in unlawful possession of the lands, he shall not be entitled to pay mesh profits for the land which remained under attachment under the meaning of section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Lucy Kochuraveed v. P. Mariappa Gounder
FACTS: B entered into a contract with A to purchase a factory from him. Subsequently, B accused A of evading the contract and filed a suit for specific performance and the decision came out in favour of A. Following this a suit for mesne profits and costs were filed by A which was allowed by both the trial court and the High Court, the later reducing the amount to be paid. B brought an appeal to the Supreme Court.
JUDGEMENT: The court held that the award of mesne profits will be moulded by the Court according to the justice of the case. Possession by another, such as a tenant, might be necessary to give rise to responsibility for mesne profits if such possession is incorrect and only the defendant found in actual possession of the property may be responsible for mesne profits. It upheld the decision of the Supreme Court.
The requirement for an appropriate and thorough
definition: - Mesne profits are the profits that a person in unlawful
possession of real estate is obligated to pay. However, this does not specify
the particular conditions under which the same should or can be done.
The CPC's provisions do not establish a fixed or predetermined
rate of interest with regard to mesne profits. Although the courts have
typically permitted 6% annually, the relevant clause does not make this clear,
which could lead to arbitrary decisions and the abuse of a discretionary power.
Additionally, there must be some degree of consistency
in the factors that are taken into account when calculating median profit.
While it is understandable that the courts find it difficult to provide for any
uniform or so-called standard method of calculation due to the variety of the
facts and circumstances of the case, the establishment of some fundamental
guidelines—likely based on prior experience through case laws themselves—would
enable a more uniform system.
Thus, it may be inferred that codifying specifics in the
provisions will only help to make them more effective.
Conclusion
The Committee on Law, in its 178th report, suggests
amending Order XX Rules 12 and 18, which are listed in the list of portions of
various statutes that the suggested modifications are proposed, to make it
mandatory to submit documentation of mesne benefit rentals up to the date the
proceedings started. According to the law commission, Rule 12 of the CPC is
decree-law in the majority of courts and an investigation is conducted about
previous or possible rentals or mesne earnings in accordance with Order XX.
The courts often appoint the legal commissioners,
report the facts, and hear the appeals over the course of years, after which a
final decision is given. The preliminary decree on rent or benefits is passed
after a decree is passed, and according to experience, it makes little
difference after that. It normally takes another 5 years or more for the
definitive decrees to be implemented after the preliminary decree. If benefit
or lease decisions are made far after the preliminary decree, the case may have
been running for years, and the delay will result in considerable
discrimination.
In my opinion, regardless of whether a decree of
ownership is passing or not, trial proof of rentals or mesne earnings should be
documented in all States and discovered in courts. For courts, there must be a
set process.
Similar to this, a preliminary order must be issued in
accordance with Order 20 Rule 18(2) and include a statement of accounts as well
as an initial calculation of the quantity and products of property partable.
Rentals and income, in particular, must be decided automatically in some
tribunals in some jurisdictions up until the date of the temporary decree. Not
only does it save time, but it also provides the parties with quick justice.
In addition, the truth is that the presumption of
evidence in the case of mesne profits essentially lied to the complainant
because the mesne profits were paid before the claimant had to inform the court
that he was the rightful owner of the property and had been defrauded of it by
the defendant's wrongful ownership.
[1] Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition, Vol. 36A, Thomson
West, 2003, p. 290
[2] N. Dasji v. Tirupathi Devasthanam, AIR 1965 SC 1231
[1] Sudipto Sarkar, Code of Civil Procedure, 11th Ed., Vol. 1, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2011p. 1548
[1] K. B. Singh v.
M. D. U. Co-Operative Association Ltd., AIR 1957 Manipur 9.
About the Author: This post is prepared by Aditya Kumar Pandey, Law student at National Law University, Odisha. He can be reached at 20bba003@nluo.ac.in
MyLawman is now on Telegram (t.me/mylawman) Follow us for regular legal updates. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter, or join our WhatsApp group. You can also subscribe to our Newsletter for Email Updates.
0 Comments