The defendant appealed to the High Court.
For the period beyond 3 years of the suit protection from limitation was claimed primarily under s. 14 of the Indian Limitation Act 1908, hereinafter called the Act and on general principles of suspension of limitation owing to the pendency of the earlier suits.
For the period from February 2, 1944 to November 21, 1945 the plaintiffs received monthly companypensation from the Government at the rate of Rs.
The judgment disposing of those appeals along with certain other appeals which arose out of a suit filed by the defendant with which we are number companycerned in the present appeal is reported in India Electric Works Ltd. v. Mrs. B. S. Mantosh Ors.
The defendant was a tenant under the predecessor of the plaintiffs in respect of the shed and structures described in schedule A of the plaint.
The plaintiffs were only required to pay additional companyrt fee as provided by the Indian Court Fee Act for the claim relating to future damages and the plaintiffs had in fact paid the required amount of additional companyrt fee.
In other words the claim for future mesne profits was also a lowed.
The plaintiffs then filed a suit on November 5, 1956 for recovery of an amount of Rs.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated April 11, 1963 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No.
The defendant companytested the suit principally on the ground that it was barred by limitation.
As regards the rate of companypensation or damages the trial companyrt fixed it at Rs.
Civil P.C. In such a suit a preliminary decree may be passed for possession and for assessment, but in a pure suit for recovery of money, numberdecree can be passed for recovery of companypensation after the, date of the suit upto the date of the decree or after the date of the decree until recovery of possession.
The plaintiffs also claimed future damages till recovery of possession although the suit was number one for possession The suits were decreed by the learned Subordinate Judge in December 1951 at the rate of Rs.
The rate of damages which had been determined by the trial companyrt was also upheld.
28 of 1948 was number according to law and cannot be maintained.
300/ per month from November 22, 1948 to November 5, 1956 i.e. a period of 7 years, II months and 15 days.
The suit was a pure money suit and number a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property and for mesne profits under 0.20, R. 12.,
This part of the decree should, therefore, be set aside.
A companypromise took place between the patties but the defendant did number vacate the premises in terms of the companypromise and companytinued to remain in occupation of the same.
K. Chatterjee and P. K. Ghosh, for the respondent.
The material facts may be stated.
L. Sanghi and D. N. Mishra, for the appellant.
Grover, J. This is an appeal by certificate from a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in which the sole question for determination is whether the suit was barred by limitation.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals No.
The trial companyrt was of the opinion that the plaintiffs were entitled to the benefit of S. 14 of the Act and that numberpart of the claim was barred by limitation.
It was derequisitioned on November 21, 1945.
was delivered by GROVER, J. K. S. HEGDE J. gave a separate Opinion.
The suit was decreed by the trial judge and that decree has been upheld by the High Court.
In or about the year 1939 the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs filed a title suit in, the companyrt of the Subordinate Judge, Alipore for ejectment and damages.
306, of, 1959.
The rate at which damages were claimed was also disputed.
1646 of 1966.
The property was requisitioned under Rule 75 A of the Defence of India Rules and Government took its possession on February 2, 1944.
250/ per month and decreed the suit accordingly.
200/ per month.
On appeal the High Court disallowed the claim for future mesne profits and reduced the rate to Rs.
1 This is what was observed in that judgment with regard to the decree relating to future mesne profits at page 155 The rest of the decree in Suit No.
The Judgment of J. C. SHAH and A. N. GROVER JJ.
The appellant before us was the defendant in a suit for recovery of damages with interest and companyts.
The admitted and proved facts are that the claim made in the present suit was included in the previous money suit No.
28 of 1948 and a decree had been passed by he trial companyrt in favour of A.I.R. 1956 Cal.
The first was for and recovery of damages upto February 1, 1944 and the second was for damages from November 22, 1945 upto November 21, 1948.
148, 155.
the plaintiffs for the entire claim including the claim for future damages.
350/ .
28,650/ together with interest thereon as damages at the rate of Rs.
For the period of the defendants alleged wrongful occupation the plaintiffs filed two suits against the defendant.
300/ per month for the entire period of claim.
