Encumbered Estates Act stay cannot cover possession or mesne profits; only the debt claim may be stayed in a composite suit.

A statutory stay under the Encumbered Estates Act extended only to proceedings in respect of debt. A claim for possession was outside the stay provision, and mesne profits were treated as unliquidated damages rather than debt; only the liquidated money claim for earlier profits fell within the Act. In a composite suit containing both stayed and unstayed causes of action, the court could order a separate trial and confine the stay to the debt component. The blanket stay of the entire suit was unsustainable, so the suit could proceed on the possession and mesne profits claims while the money claim remained stayed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a suit combining a claim for possession, mesne profits, and a money claim was wholly liable to be stayed under the Encumbered Estates Act; (ii) whether the proper course was to order a separate trial and stay only the part of the suit relating to the debt claim.

Issue (i): Whether a suit combining a claim for possession, mesne profits, and a money claim was wholly liable to be stayed under the Encumbered Estates Act.

Analysis: The stay provision applied only to proceedings in respect of a debt. A claim for possession was not a debt. Mesne profits were treated as unliquidated damages and, therefore, outside the statutory definition of debt. Only the claim for Rs. 2500, being a liquidated money liability for profits of an earlier year, fell within the Act.

Conclusion: The suit was not wholly liable to be stayed; only the money claim was within the Encumbered Estates Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the proper course was to order a separate trial and stay only the part of the suit relating to the debt claim.

Analysis: Where a composite suit includes causes of action partly within and partly outside the stay provision, the court may direct separate trial of the joined causes of action. The claims for possession and mesne profits should not be delayed by the proceedings under the Encumbered Estates Act, while the debt claim could properly be stayed.

Conclusion: A separate trial should have been ordered and only the debt claim stayed.

Final Conclusion: The blanket stay of the entire suit was unsustainable, and the revision succeeded with the suit to proceed except for the stayed money claim.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory stay limited to proceedings in respect of debt cannot be extended to claims for possession or mesne profits, and in a composite suit the court should sever and stay only the part covered by the stay provision.

---