Contingent mesne profits claims accrue only on final tenancy adjudication, and residuary limitation applies instead of the special article.

Where entitlement to mesne profits is made expressly contingent on the outcome of separate tenancy litigation, the cause of action accrues only when that litigation is finally decided, because the right to sue does not mature earlier. In that setting, the residuary limitation provision applies rather than the article governing a simple claim for profits of immovable property wrongfully received. The period during which the tenancy dispute remains pending is not treated as a case of suspended limitation after accrual, but as a situation where accrual itself is deferred until final adjudication.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the claim for mesne profits was governed by Article 51 of the Limitation Act, 1963 or by the residuary Article 113. (ii) Whether limitation began to run from the date of receipt of profits or only from the final rejection of the tenant's claim, and whether the period during which the tenancy dispute remained pending was to be excluded.

Issue (i): Whether the claim for mesne profits was governed by Article 51 of the Limitation Act, 1963 or by the residuary Article 113.

Analysis: Article 51 applies to a simple suit for profits of immovable property wrongfully received by the defendant. The claim here arose out of a special arrangement between the parties after the auction purchaser had obtained title and the occupant's tenancy claim was left to be decided in separate proceedings. The court treated the suit not as an ordinary periodic claim for mesne profits, but as a consequential claim linked to the outcome of the tenancy litigation. In that setting, the residuary provision was held to govern the suit.

Conclusion: Article 113 applied, not Article 51.

Issue (ii): Whether limitation began to run from the date of receipt of profits or only from the final rejection of the tenant's claim, and whether the period during which the tenancy dispute remained pending was to be excluded.

Analysis: The parties had agreed that the auction purchaser's entitlement to recover profits would arise only if the occupant failed in the declaratory suit. The cause of action therefore accrued when the tenancy claim was finally rejected, because until then the right to sue for profits was contingent and had not matured. The court also held that the case was not one of suspension of limitation after time had begun to run, but one where the right itself arose only on final adjudication. On that basis, exclusion under the alternative limitation arguments was unnecessary.

Conclusion: Limitation commenced on the final dismissal of the tenancy claim, and the suit was within time.

Final Conclusion: The plaintiff's claim for additional mesne profits was maintainable in full to the extent allowed, and the trial court's restriction to three years was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the parties expressly make entitlement to profits dependent on the final outcome of separate litigation, the cause of action for recovery of those profits accrues only on final adjudication of that litigation, and the residuary limitation article applies rather than the article governing a simple claim for wrongfully received profits.

---