Raja Bhupendra Narain Singha Bahadur v. Maharaj Bahadur Singh and Others (1952 INSC 20)

Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided: 2 April 1952
Bench: Mehr Chand Mahajan, N. Chandrasekhara Aiyar, Vivian Bose
Case no.: Civil Appeals Nos. 68 to 92 of 1951

Headnote

Equitable set-off-Suit by patnidar against zemindar for posses-sion of land with mesne f"ofits-Decree t"n favour of patnidar-Claim by 'zemindar to set off against m.esne profits rent_, revenue and· cesses which accl'ited after deUvCry of t:ossession-Maintainability. : Where a patnidar has obtained a decree against his zcmindar · for' possessiori .of reSU1ned challkld?ri chakran lands with mesnc profits from· the date on which · the zemihdar wrongfully took. possession of them, the zemindar is not entitled to deduct by -1952 way of equitable set-off from the amount of mesne profits pay- . ---- able by him under the decree, the amounts due to him on account Ra1a B_~uP.endra of rent, revenue and cesses for a period subsequent to the date Narain Szngha of delivery_ of possession of the lands inasmuch _as the two cross Bahadur demands do not arise out of the same transaction. The transac- .-v. tion which led to the plaintiff's demand for mes_ne profits resulted • Maharaj from the defendant's wrongful act as trespasser, while the Bahadur Singh transaction ·which gave rise to the zemindar's demand arose out and Others. of-the relationship of landlord and tenant and the obligations resulting therefrom. Mahajan J.

_ CrvrL APPELLATE JrnusmcTION : Appeals from the judgments arid -decrees dated the 23rd February, 1945, of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta (Akram and Blank JJ.) in Second Appeals Nos. 861 to 885 of 1939 from the judgments and decrees dated the 16th December, 1938, of the Court of the District Judge, Birbhum, in Title Appeals Nos. 23 'to 47 of 1938.

Sitaram Bannerjee (Arun Kumar Dutta and Amiya Kumar· Mukherjea, with him) for the appellant in Civil Appeals Nos. 68 to 74 of 1951.

Urukramdas Chakravarthy (S. 'fl/. Mukherjee, with him) for the respondent No .. 1. in Civil Appeals Nos. 68 to ·- 74 of 1951.

Sitaram Bannerjee (Arun Kutnar Dutta and Amiya Kumar Mukherjea, with him) for the appellant in Civil Appeals Nos. 75 to 92 of 1951.

Panchanan Chose (Chandra Nath Mukherji, with him) for the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 in Civil Appeals Nos. 75 to 92 of 1951.

1952. April 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by - -

MAHAJAN J.-These appeals are directed against the judgment and decrees of the High Court of Judi-cature at Calcutta, dated 23rd February, 1945, revers-ing the judgment and decrees passed· by the District Judge -of Birbhum dated - 16th December, 1938. The principal questions for determination are the same m

1952 all of them and can be conveniently disposed of by

one judgment.

Raja Bhupendra Narain Singha

Bahadur

v. It is necessary to set out briefly the history of this Maharaj half a century old litigation. The seven suits out of IJahadur Singh which arise Appeals Nos. 68 to 74 were filed iH

and Others. September, 1904, by Maharaja Bahadur Singh, in Mahajan /. the court of the different Munsifs at Rampurhat,

against Raja Ranjit Singh Bahadur, deceased, and others, for a declaration of his title to the lands mentioned in the different suits and for mesne profits from the year 1899. till recovery of possession. It was alleged that the lands in the several suits were chow-kidari chakran lands within the plaintiff's patnidari, granted to his predecessors in interest on 14th November, 1853, by the ancestors of the defendant, that · as the lands were in the possession of village watchman on service tenures, they were excluded from assessment of land revenue and no rent was paid on them, that in the year 1899 under the provisions of sections 50 and 51 of Bengal Act VI of 1870 Govern-ment resumed the lands, terminated the service tenures and settled them with the zamindar, that in this situation the plaintiff as patnidar became entitled to their actual physical possession, that the zamindar wrongfully took physical possession of them and deni-ed the right of the plaintiff and hence he was entitled to the reliefs claimed. The suits were decreed on 17th August, 1905, and 19th August, 1905, by the two courts respectively and the decisions were affirmed on appeal by the District Judge. On special ~ppeal to the High Court, the suits were remanded for trial on the question of limitation, and after remand they were dismissed by the trial court and the Court of appeal as barred by limitation. On second appeal, it was held that the suits were within limitation and were then decreed for the second time. This decision was affirmed on appeal to His Majesty in Council. The plaintiff actually obtained possession of the lands invol:ved in these su~ts in August, 1913. An applica-tion was made for ascertainment of mesne profits on 6th November, 1918. This was resisted by the defend-1952 ant and it was pleaded that the plaintiff was not entitled to interest on mesne profits, that the zamindar Raja 13hupendra Narain Singha was entitled to receive the profits of the disputed Bahadur lands and that deduction should be made out of the v. amount of the mesne profits on account of munafa Maharaj and the amount of chowkidari dues as well as cesses Bahadur Singlt due to him or paid by him. Five years later, on and Others. 24th June, 1927, another set of objections was filed Mahajan I~ by the zamindar claiming deduction out of mesne profits 'by way of equitable set-off of the payments made by him subsequent to the date of delivery of possession as well as for the amount of munafa that became payable to him after that date. After a pro-longed enquiry .the trial court on 18th December, ..... 1937, decreed the plaintiff's claim for mesne profits

after allowing the zamindar the deductions claimed by him up to the date of assessment of mesne profits but disallowed the amount claimed by way of equit-able set~off for the subsequent period. The learned District Judge on appeal reversed this decision and allowed the defendant the amount claimed by him by way of equitable set-off, subject, however, to the con-dition that the dues of the defendant should be deducted from the dues of the plaintiff till the defcnd-ant' s dues were wiped off. The relevant part· of his judgment runs thus :-

"The broad fact is that they (plaintiffs) have been in possession of the lands since 1910 and have been in enjoyment of rent from the tenants from that date and according to law they are not entitled to possess the land unconditionally. Now that all the facts are before the court and the time has come for final adjustment of accounts between the parties the court should try to do substantial justice between the parties. It is not sufficient answer to say that the plea of equitable set-off was not raised in the begin-ning. The circumstances in all these cases are pecu-liar and it could hardly be expected that such plea would have been taken in the very beginning. The course of litigation in these cases has not run along

1952 easy and smooth channels : on the contrary its course

has been extremely tortuous and disturbed frequmtly Raja Bhupendra by conflicting decisions. No one could have reason-Narain Singha

Bahadur ably anticipated in the beginning that the litigation

v. would be protracted in this extraordinary· way. It is Maharaj the duty of the court to take notice of the subsequ-Bahadur Singh ent events in order to do justice between the parties

and Others. . ..... As we are dealing with the question of equitable J\1ahajan f, set-off, no question of time-barred debts or unas-

certained sum can arise. . . . . . The plea of equitable set-off in respect of time-barred debts can be set up as a shield by way of defence nor can any question of pay-ment of court-fees arise. There is, in my opinion, no substantial difference in the character of the respec-tive parties during the entire period and it would be futile to make an attempt at distinction by over; subtle argument where there is really no difference in substance. There is considerable force in .the argument advanced on the side of tl1e appelltant, namely, tile appellant's claim to the equitable set-off is really in the. nature of cross-demand arising out of the same transac-tion and connected in its nature and cricumstances ..... ; From whatever standpoint the matter may be 'looked at I am of the opinion that the claim of the appell~nt for equitable set-off for the subsequent period by way of deduction of the chowkidari revenue and cess .paid by him as well as on account of munafa should be allowed. This amount will also carry interest at 6 per cent per annum up to date. The subsequent! period means the period since the date of delivery of possession up to 1927-28."

Against the judgment and decrees of the District' Judge the plaintiff preferred appeals to the High Court at Calcutta. The High Court by the judgment under appeal modified the decress of the District Judge and disallowed the claim for equitable set-off in its entirety for the subsequent period and restored the decree of the trial court. The zamindar filed applications for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. These applications were consolidated with similar applica-tions filed in t11e second batch of suits. A certificate was granted for leave to appeal to His Majesty in 1952 Council. By an order dated 9th June, 1947, all the appeals were admitted and it was directed that the Raja Bhupendra Narain Singh11 proceedings be printed and transmitted to England. Bahadur During the pendency of the proceedings in the High v. Court, Raja Bhupendra Narayan Singh died and the Maharaj 11resent appellant was impleaded as his heir and Bahadur Singh representative. An application was also made in the and Others. High Court for permission to urge additional grounds not already taken. After the abolition of the juris-diction of the Privy Council these appeals were transmitted to this Court.

An application under Order XIX, rule 4, of the Supreme Court Rules was presented at the hearing of the appeals that the appellant be allowed to urge the following additional grounds in support of the appeals, viz.:-

(1) That the munafa (rent) should not be calculat-ed on the basis of the principles laid down in Radhacharan v. Maharaja Raniit Singh(1).

(2) That the said munafa should have been assessed on a fair share of the profits from the land.

The ~~econd batch of appeals. (Nos. 75 to 92 of 1951) arises out of 18 suits instituted in the court of the Munsif of Rampurhat on 22nd December, 1909, by Ganpat Singh and Narpat Singh predecessors in interest of respondents 1 to 3 against the predecessors in interest of the appellant, late Raja Ranjit Singh Bahadur, and also some other persons who were tenants under him, for a declaration of the plaintiffs'

title to the resumed chowkidari chakran lands and for khas possession of the same and for mesne profits~ The allegations in these suits were the same as in the first set of suits. The defence to the suits was also the same. The suits were decreed by the trial Judge on 30th September, 1910, in the following terms :-

"The plaintiffs' title is declared to the lands in suit and they will get khas possession of the same by ejecting the tenant defendants; on condition of paying

(1) (1918) 27 C.L.J. 532.

1952 to t.he defendant No. 1 an additional rent, to be deter-ii

mined on the principle that the original patni rent should .1 Raja Bhupi:ndra Narain Singha ·bear the same ratio to the patni rent now payable bv the

Bahadur plaintiffs as the original H ustbood at the time of the

v. creation of the patni should bear to the present increased Maharaj Hustbood, or any other fair and equitable rent which Bahadur Singh may be determined at the time of assessing the ·mesne

and Others. profits.

Mahajan /. The plaintiffs will get W asilat from defendant

No. I up to the date of delivery of possession of the land in suit to them. The amount will be determined in a separate enquiry."

The District Judge on appeal remanded the cases for determination of the conditions and terms under which the patnidar was to hold the lands under the zamindar and directed ascertainment of profits. The plaintiffs obtained delivery of possession of the lands in the meanwhile on 23rd November, 1910. Against the remand order appeals were preferred to the High Court and the 'High Court decreed the appeals in these terms:- "W e set aside the portion of the decision of the District Judge which remands the cases to the original court to determine the conditions under which the patnidar is to hold the lands under the zarnindar. Rest of the remand order will stand. That portion of the Munsif's decree, which imposes on the appell;mt, as a condition of obtaining khas possession, the pay-ment of additional rent to the zamindar will be set aside."

Against these decrees appeals were preferred to His Majesty in Council by special ilcave. The Privy Council set aside the decrees of the High Court and observed as follows:- "Their Lordships, therefore, see no reason for inter-fering with the long series of authorities commencing as. far back as the . year 1900, which have established the right of the zamindar to have an additional rent fixed for such 'lands not can. their Lordships overlook the fact that in the cases already referred before this Board no exception was taken by the patnidar to the fixing of such rents as a condition of being put into 1952 possession. . "

Raja BhupendriJ Nargin Singhi!I On 8th December, 1922, the plaintiffs filed applica-Bahadur tions in these suits for ascertainment of mesne profits v. for the years 1906 to 1910. Objections were taken Maharaj on behalf of the defendant on the 17th April, 1923, Bahadur Singh and it was contended that .the plaintiffs may be allow-and Others. ed mesne profits to ·the extent of the amount that Mahajan f. would be found due after deduction of the amount of rent to which the defendant was entitled in respect of the lands in suit according lb the judgment of the munsif. On the 28th May, 1927, another application was filed by the zamindar claiming deduction by way of equiitab'.le set-off of the amounts due to him for rent from 1910 onwards and on account of sub-sequent payment made by him towards revenue and cesses. After a prolonged enquiry the munsaf ulti-mately on the 18th December, 1937, decreed the plaintiff's claim for mesne profits after allowing deductions for the amounts claimed by the defendant up to the date of delivery of possession. He held that the appellant was not entitled to get any amount by way of equitable set-off in respect of sums of money spent by him in payment of revenue and cesses or for the amount of munafa or profits for the period subsequent to the date of delivery of possession.

The District Judge on appeal! by his judgment dated the 16th December, 1938, allowed the claim of equit-able set-off for the period subsequent to delivery of possession and directed that "from the plaintiffs'

dues, the dues of the defendant are to be deducted and if after these deductions any sum is due to the plaintiffs they will get a decree for that sum. If it is found on calculations in some cases that the dues of the defendant exceed the dues of the plaintiffs, in such cases the prayer · of the plaintiffs for mesne profits must be dismissed." Against this decision special appeals were pref erred to the High Court and by the judgment under appeal the decision of the uial court was restored. Applications were then made for leave to appeals to His 1\1.ajesty in. Council and

2-9 S.C. Indiaf71

1952 those were allowed and a certificate was granted for Raja BhuPendra preferring those appeals. Because of the abolition of

Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.

Official PDF Read full judgment Report an error

Judgment

As regards the amounts due to the appellant by way of rent subsequent to .the date of transfer of pos-session, the claim is unconnected with the subject-matter of the different suits. It seems clear that a plea in the nature of equitable set-off is not available when the cross-demands do not arise out of the same ·. transaction. Mesne profits due to the plaintiff relate

to the period during which the appellant was in wrongful possession of the lands and .the amounts claimed by the defendant relate to a period when he was no longer in possession and had ceased to be a trespasser. No mesne profits a.re claimaWe for that period. The right of the appellant to recover addi-tional rents from the plaintiff arises out of a different I. ! cause of action and independently of the claim for

mesne profits. If the patnidar after having entered into possession had defaulted in the payment of the (1) (1918) 27 C.L.J. 532. '· .• , , ; ': additional rents due for any period, nothing stood in 1952 the way of the appellant from recovering them by appropriate legal proceedings. The prolongation of Raia Bhupendra Narain SingA11 the enquiry for ascertainment of the mesne profits Bahadur cannot support a claim for equitable set-off for the v. period subsequent to the delivery of possession to the Maharai plaintiff. Bahadur SingA and Others. It is obvious· that no claim for equitable set-off J. against mesne profits during the pendency of the suits Mahajan could be made for the sums deduction of which is now sought, as the amounts had not then accrued due and his right to them had not yet arisen. The learned District Judge was in error in holding that the ap-pellant's claim for equitable set-off was in the nature of a cross-demand arising out of the same transaction and connected in its nature and circumstances. He failed to appreciate that the transaction which led to plaintiff's demand r~sulted tfrom the defendant's wrongful act as a trespasser, while the transaction giving rise to the appellant's demand arises out of the relationship of landlord and tenant and the obligations resulting therefrom. A wrongdoer who has wrong-fully withheld moneys belonging to another cannot invoke any principles of equity in his favour and seek to deduct therefrom the amounts that during this period have fallen due to him. There is nothing im-proper or unjust in telling the wrongdoer to undo his wrong, and not to take advantage of it. Such a person cannot be helped on any principles of equity to recover amounts for the recovery of which he could have taken action in due course of law and which for some unexplained reason he failed to take and which claim may have by now become barred by limitation.

It was contended that it was only after the decree of the Privy Council that the appellant's rights to the additional rent was finally established and till then no legal steps could be taken to enforce this demand.

The contention is without force. The appellant's right to additional rent had been established by the decree of the trial court in execution of which posses-sion passed from him to the patnidar. 'fhe Privy

.--- 1952 Council only affirmed this decision. The patnidars

under the decree were entitled to possession of the Raia Bhupendra lands conditional on payment of the additional rent Narain St'ngha ..

Bahadur due for the period they had been out of possession.

v. That condition having been fulfilled (by adjustment Maharaj of the appellant's claim against the mesne profits), Bahadur Singh the decree must be held to have been satisfied, thus

and Others. completely settling the cross-demands. The landlord's Mahajan /. demand for subsequent rents has to be enforced in the

ordinary way in the civil court if any default has been committed in the payment of these rents. This claim cannot for ever remain linked with the demand for mesne profits for any anterior period. The result 1s that the decision of the High Court on this point is maintained.

On the question of future interest payable on the decretal amount, the learned District Judge observed as follows:- "I may state, however, at this stage that if I were to rule out the fact that I am allowing the claim of the appellant for equitable set-off, I would have allowed interest to the plaintiffs at the uniform rate of 4 per cent. per annum throughout, i.e., from the beginning of the W ashilat · period up to date: As I am allowing the prayer for equitable set-off, I am of opinion, how-ever, that interest at the usual rate at 6 per cent. per annum should be granted for the whole of this period." The High Court disallowed equitable set-off but yet maintained this decision. When the claim for equit-able set-off is being disallowed, there is no justification for allowing future interest at the rate of more than 1' four per cent. for such a long period, particularly in a case where the plaintiff himself has not been prompt in getting the amount of mesrie profits ascertained. The plaintiff did not even ask for an enquiry into this question· for a period of about twelve years. Taking .into consideration all the circurristances of the case we , think that future interest .should · not have been allow- . ed to the' plaintiff in the several suits at a higher rate ,.i.. . than four per cent: on the amount decreed in the vari- ·<$ suits by way 'of mesne :profits. ·

The appellant's last contention that the munafa 1952 (rent) should not be calculated on· the principle laid ·down in v. · (1) Raja Bhupendra

Radhacharan Maharaja Ranjit Singh Narain Singha but should have been assessed on a fair share of the Bahadur profits of the land has no substance because the claim v. was not made in the grounds of appeal to the Privy Maharaj Council and was not even mentioned in the additional Bahadur Singh t and Others.

grounds of appeal. It was for the first time made be-fore us at the hearing and we see no valid grounds for Mahajan /. ·entertaining it at this late stage. Moreover, it seems to us that the claim has no substance in the absence of any .evidence about the proportion the original patni rent bore to the r.evenue and cesses.

For the reasons given above all these appeals fail except to the extent that the decree of the High Court is modified in that the amounts decreed by way of mesne profits in the various suits will bear interest at the rate of four per cent. instead of six per cent. The · parties will bear their own costs in all these appeals.

Appeals dismissed.

Agent for the appellant in Civil Appeals No. 62 to

74 :lJ.ld 75 to 92 : P. K. Bose.

'W Agent for respondent No. 1 in Civil Appeals Nos. 68

to 74 : Ganpat Rai.

Agent for the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 m Civil · Appeals Nos. 75 to 92 : Sukumar Ghose.

MUSAMMAT PHOOL KUER 1952

ti.

MUSAMMAT PEM KUER AND ANOTHE.lt. April 24

PANDIT MADAN MOHAN

MUSAMMAT PEM KUER AND ANOTHER .

[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR.

and VMAN BosE JJ.]

Hindu law-Widow-Surrender 'to next reversioner and stranger-Validity-Compromise by widow-When binding O# reversioner.

(1) (1918) 27 C.L.J. 532.

Source: Supreme Court of India, Digital Supreme Court Reports, via the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.