Supreme Court Partially Modifies High Court Order on Mesne Profits in Property Dispute

The case of Anar Devi (D) through LR vs. Vasudev Mangal & Ors. revolves around a long-standing property dispute concerning the recovery of possession and mesne profits. The Supreme Court’s judgment clarifies the principles surrounding mesne profits during the pendency of appeals and addresses concerns regarding the calculation of such payments.

This appeal was filed against the Rajasthan High Court’s decision to reduce the amount of mesne profits awarded to the judgment creditor. The Supreme Court, after analyzing the facts and legal principles, partially modified the High Court’s ruling, increasing the mesne profits awarded to the landlord while upholding the dismissal of the petition seeking further enhancement.

Background of the Case

The dispute began when the appellant, Anar Devi, filed four separate suits for possession and mesne profits against the respondents, who were in possession of different portions of her residential house. The appellant claimed that the respondents were occupying the property as licensees, and after the termination of their license, they were required to vacate the premises and compensate her for the unauthorized occupation.

The trial court ruled in favor of the appellant, directing the respondents to vacate the property and pay mesne profits. However, the respondents challenged the decision before the first appellate court and sought a stay of the trial court’s decree. The appellate court granted a stay but imposed a condition that the respondents pay mesne profits at the following rates:

Vasudev Mangal: Rs. 10,000 per month
Mohan Lal Mangal: Rs. 5,500 per month
Chimman Lal: Rs. 3,000 per month
Shyamlal Mangal: Rs. 7,000 per month

Both parties were dissatisfied with this decision. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking an increase in mesne profits, while the respondents filed petitions challenging the amounts fixed by the appellate court.

Arguments Presented by the Petitioner

The appellant, through her legal representatives, contended:

The respondents had been illegally occupying the property for years and should pay a fair market rate for their occupation.
The first appellate court erred in fixing mesne profits at rates lower than the actual rental value of the premises.
The High Court’s decision to reduce the mesne profits by 50% was arbitrary and failed to consider the property’s market potential.
Even if the property was residential, the mesne profits should have been determined based on the prevailing rental rates in the area.

Arguments Presented by the Respondents

The respondents countered by arguing:

The property in question was an old residential building, not a commercial one.
The valuation report relied upon by the appellant was based on commercial property rates, which should not apply to a residential property.
The mesne profits fixed by the first appellate court were excessively high and should be reduced to more reasonable amounts.
They were willing to pay mesne profits but only at a rate commensurate with the property’s actual rental value.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Verdict

The Supreme Court carefully examined the High Court’s reasoning and found that it had mechanically reduced the mesne profits without adequately considering the actual rental potential of the property. The Court noted:

The High Court erred in reducing the mesne profits solely based on the fact that the property was residential.
The trial court had considered various factors before determining the appropriate mesne profits.
The High Court failed to account for the present market value of similar properties in the area.
A 50% reduction in mesne profits was not justified, even if the valuation report considered commercial property rates.

In light of these observations, the Supreme Court modified the High Court’s decision and revised the mesne profits as follows:

Vasudev Mangal: Rs. 7,500 per month (earlier Rs. 4,000 as per High Court)
Mohan Lal Mangal: Rs. 4,500 per month (earlier Rs. 3,300 as per High Court)
Chimman Lal: Rs. 2,250 per month (earlier Rs. 1,500 as per High Court)
Shyamlal Mangal: Rs. 5,500 per month (earlier Rs. 4,000 as per High Court)

Additionally, the Supreme Court ordered that the pending appeals before the first appellate court be expedited and disposed of at the earliest.

Legal Precedents Considered

The Supreme Court referred to various cases on mesne profits and the assessment of fair rental value:

Sarup Singh Gupta vs. Jagdish Singh (2006): Established that mesne profits should be based on market rent.
Martin & Harris Ltd. vs. Sixth Additional District Judge (1998): Held that fair rental value must be assessed objectively.
K.K. Verma vs. Union of India (1954): Defined mesne profits as compensation for wrongful possession.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications:

It reinforces the principle that mesne profits should be calculated based on actual market conditions.
It discourages tenants from prolonging litigation to avoid fair compensation for unauthorized occupation.
It establishes that courts must carefully consider property valuation before arbitrarily reducing mesne profits.
The decision provides clarity on the methodology for fixing mesne profits in property disputes.

By striking a balance between the interests of landlords and tenants, the Supreme Court’s ruling ensures that property owners receive fair compensation for unauthorized occupancy while preventing excessive financial burden on tenants.

Petitioner Name: Anar Devi (D) through LR.
Respondent Name: Vasudev Mangal & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice B.V. Nagarathna.
Place Of Incident: Rajasthan.
Judgment Date: 10-03-2022.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: anar-devi-(d)-throug-vs-vasudev-mangal-&-ors-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-10-03-2022.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Damages and Compensation
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in Judgment by B.V. Nagarathna
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2022
See all petitions in 2022 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category