SANT RAM versus DHAN KAUR & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 12 S.C.R. 1029 · Decided: 16-10-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 12 S.C.R. 1029 
SANT RAM 
v. 
OHAN KAUR & ORS. 
I.A. N0.4 OF 2014 
IN 
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.13915 of 2008) 
OCTOBER 16, 2015 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND ABHAY 
MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
c 
E . 
Supreme Court Rules, 1966 -
Order XVIII r.5 -
Application under- Against the order of Registrar (J-11) of 
Supreme Court, refusing to register the application for D 
clarification/interpretation of the order dated 21.4. 2009 
passed by Supreme Court - Propriety of- In a suit, filed by 
the predecessor-in-interest of the applicant, mesne profit 
determined at Rs.2001- p.m.by the trial court - The same 
was reduced to Rs.301- p.m. by appellate court and further 
confirmed by High Court ..:. In Supreme Court, the Special 
Leave Petition was closed by order dated 21.4.2009 on the 
basis of statement of the counsel for the applicant that he 
did not want to press the prayer for mesne profit - The 
F 
execution petition of the applicant seeking execution of the 
order of mesne profit@ Rs.301- p.m. was dismissed -
Revision petition thereagainst was also dismissed -
Applicant's application before Registrar (J-11) of Supreme 
Court for clarification of the order dated 21.4.2009, was 
G 
dismissed - Hence, the application u!Or. XVIII r.5 - Held: 
Only those issues can be given up by a party which are the 
subject matter of lis before the Court -
The issue for 
adjudication before this Court was whether; the applicant was 
1029 
H 
1030 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 
A entitled to claim mesne profit for the balance amount 
i.e.Rs.1701- p.m. and not for his entitlement to the entire 
mesne profit - The order dated 21.4.2009 could not have 
been construed so as to deprive the applicant to claim mesne 
profit@ Rs.301- p.m. as the same was already adjudicated 
8 
upon and that was not challenged by the respondents -
Therefore, what was given up by the applicant was claim for 
the balance mesne profit of Rs. 1701- p.m. and not for his 
entitlement for the entire mesne profit - Executing Court 
c directed to decide the execution petition. 
Allowing the application, the Court 
HELD: 1. Since the applicant was already awarded 
mesne profits at the rate of Rs.30/- p.m. with 10% 
increase every three years from the date of filing of suit 
D till 21.08.1990 together with interest@ 12% at the amount 
accruing due month after month, which was not under 
challenge at the instance of respondents and hence the 
question was whether the applicant was entitled to claim 
E mesne profits for the balance amount, i.e. Rs.170/-p.m. 
from the respondents. It is this claim, i.e., Rs. 170/- p.m., 
which was given up by the applicant that being the 
subject matter of the petition which this Court recorded 
and accordingly disposed of the applicant's petition by 
F order dated 21.04.2009. [Paras 31 and 32] [1039-F-H; 
1040-A] 
2. The order dated 21.04.2009 could not have been 
construed so as to deprive the applicant to claim mesne 
0 
profits at the rate of Rs.30/- p.m. with 10% increase every 
three years from the date of filing of suit till 21.08.1990 
together with interest@ 12% at the amount accruing due 
month after month from the respondent. Indeed, this 
claim which was already adjudicated in applicant's favour 
H . by the Courts below and which was neither challenged 
by the respondents and nor was it the subject matter of 
SANT RAM v. OHAN KAUR & ORS. 
1031 
dispute in applicant's petition, the same could not ·be 
A 
held to have been given up by the applicant by order 
dated 21.04.2009. [Para 33] [1040-B-C] 
3. It is a settled principle of law that only those issues 
could be given up by the party which are the subject 8 
matter of the /is before the Court. Since in the petition 
before this Court, the issue with regard to award of mesne 
profits at the rate of 30/- p.m. was not the subject matter 
at the instance of any party to the /is, the question of its 
giving up at the instance of the applicant did not arise. c 
The order dated 21.04.2009, has to be interpreted 
keeping in view these background facts. [Para 34] [1040-
D-E] 
4. It is, therefore, clarified that the applicant's right D 
to claim mesne profits Rs.30/- p.m. with 10% increase 
every three years from the date of filing of suit till 
21.08.1990 together with interest @ 12% at the amount 
accruing due month after month from the respondents 
would remain intact for recovery from the respondents 
E 
and is not affected in any manner by order dated 
21.04.2009. In ot

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.