TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the rate of interest on mesne profits from 6 per cent to 4 per cent before decree and to 3 per cent after decree. (ii) Whether the High Court's assessment of mesne profits for the disputed properties, including allowances for improvements and collection charges, called for interference.
Issue (i): Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the rate of interest on mesne profits from 6 per cent to 4 per cent before decree and to 3 per cent after decree.
Analysis: Interest forms an integral part of mesne profits, and the ordinary court rate of 6 per cent is not inherently unreasonable. The Court held that the defendant's continued possession after removal from management remained wrongful, and the circumstance that the properties of the trust and the defendant's own institution had been mixed up did not justify a lower rate. The reasons relied upon by the High Court, including the size of the decree and the prior managerial status of the defendant, were held insufficient to reduce the normal rate.
Conclusion: The reduction of interest by the High Court was not justified, and interest at 6 per cent per annum was restored on the basis directed for yearly profits and the aggregate sum.
Issue (ii): Whether the High Court's assessment of mesne profits for the disputed properties, including allowances for improvements and collection charges, called for interference.
Analysis: The Court accepted the High Court's approach in allowing a limited deduction for the value of improvements in respect of the converted stable and elephant stand, since the defendant was not removing the constructions and could have demolished them before surrendering possession. The Court also upheld the detailed computation of profits for the remaining items and found no basis to disturb the allowance made for collection charges on the footing adopted in the joint working out of the decree.
Conclusion: The High Court's assessment of mesne profits, except for the reduction in interest, was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The appeals filed by the Mahant failed, while the appeals filed by the Devasthanam Committee succeeded only on the question of rate of interest, resulting in a partial modification of the decree.
Ratio Decidendi: Where mesne profits are recoverable for wrongful possession, interest is ordinarily allowable at the normal court rate unless special circumstances justifying a reduction are clearly established.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
