UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus RAJA MOHAMMED AMIR MOHAMMAD KHAN

Citation: [2010] 1 S.C.R. 774 · Decided: 19-01-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
[2010] 1 S.C.R. 774 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
v. 
RAJA MOHAMMED AMIR MOHAMMAD KHAN 
I.A. No. 47 and 48 
In 
(Civil Appeal No. 2501 of 2002) 
JANUARY 19, 2010 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
C 
Mesne Profit - Claim for - Supreme Court by final order 
declaring the claimant to be successor of the estate of 
predecessor-Raja - Direction issued to the Custodian of 
Enemy Property to release the rents and profit collected after 
5.4.2002 to the claimant - Also held that mesne profit prior 
D to that date to be claimed by resorting to the remedy of suit -
Interlocutory applications filed before Supreme Court claiming 
the amount credited in the account of predecessor-Raja on 
27.3.2002 - Held: Since the claim was for the period prior to 
5.4.2002, claimant entitled to recover it by filing a suit- Enemy 
E Property Act, 1968. 
In the present appeal, Supreme Court held that the 
respondent was sole legal heir and successor to the 
properties of the Late Raja of Mahmudabad, which had 
been taken over by the Custodian of Enemy Property 
F under the provisions of the Enemy Property Act, 1968. 
The court held that he could get mesne profit for the 
period i.e. till the passing of interim order on 5.4.2002 by 
filing a suit. Money received as rent or lease aft~r_5.4.2002 
was directed to be handed over to the respondent. 
G Appellant was also directed to handover possession of 
other properties to the respondent. 
From the records of the Custodian of Enemy 
Property, respondent came to know that an amount was 
H 
774 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. RAJA MOHAMMED AMIR 775 
MOHAMMAD KHAN 
credited to the account of the Late Raja on 27 .3.2002. 
A 
Respondent claimed remission of the amount to his 
credit. The same was refused. Hence the present 
applications were filed by the respondent for a direction 
to the appellant and the Custodian of Enemy Property, 
to release the amount to his credit. 
B 
Dismissing the applications, the Court 
HELD: 1. A conscious distinction with regard to the 
rents and profits collected from the estate prior to 
5.4.2002 and thereafter, had been made by this Court 
while disposing of the appeal. It was clearly the intention C 
of the Court that in respect of rents and profits collected 
after the order of status-quo passed on 5.4.2002, the same 
were to be made over by the Custodian to the applicant, 
but as far as the rents and profits collected prior to that 
date were concerned, the applicant would be required to D 
file a suit to recover the same. [Para 14) [781-F-H; 782-A] 
2. The directions given to the appellants to hand over 
the possession of other properties, mentioned in the 
second part of the order relates to the immovable 
E 
properties of the estate and not to the rents and profits 
collected by the Custodian from the estate prior to 
5.4.2002. The two sets of properties are dealt with 
separately and are on two different settings. [Para 15) 
[782-E-F] 
3. Since the amount recorded in the Custodian's 
ledger as being credited to the Estate of Raja of 
Mahmudabad represents the collections made from the 
estate prior to the order of status-quo passed on 5.4.2002, 
F 
the respondent has been given leave to recover the same 
G 
by filing a suit. In view of the said order passed by this 
Court, it cannot be said that the directions to make over 
the possession of other properties to the applicant also 
included the rents and profits collected from the estate 
prior to 5.4.2002. [Para 15) [782-G-H; 783-A] 
H 
776 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
B 
c 
2501 of 2002. 
I.A Nos. 47 & 48 
In 
Civil Appeal No. (s) 2501 of 2002. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 21.09.2001 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1524 of 
1997. 
Indira Singh, ASG, Naresh Kaushik, Subhash Kaushik, 
AK. Sharma, Aditi Gupta, Lalitha Kaushik, Shreekant N. Terdal 
for the Appellants. 
P.V. Kapur, S.K. Dwivedi, Anjali K. Varma, Meera Mathur, 
D Niraj Gupta, Chetna Gulati, Shail Kumar Dwivedi, Subhash 
Chandra Jain, Shrish Kumar Misra, Gunnam Venkateswara 
Rao, R.K. Gupta, Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, G.V. Rao for the 
Respondent. 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. These two I.A Nos.47 and 48 of 
2008 have been filed on behalf of the Respondent in connection 
with Contempt Petition No.87 of 2006 filed in Civil Appeal 
No.2501 of 2002, inter alia, for a direction upon the Union of 
F India, and the Custodian of

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