High CourtsDivision Bench(1923) 02 BOM CK 0002

Gulam Mohiuddin Narmavala vs Dayabhai Chimanlal

Bombay High Court · Decided on 16 February 1923 · Citation: AIR 1923 Bom 398 : (1923) 25 BOMLR 447 : 73 Ind. Cas. 442

HON’BLE JUDGES
Norman Macleod, J · Crump, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Second Appeal No. 301 of 1922

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 186 words

Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.—The first defendant held over after notice was given to vacate the suit property which was let out to him by the plaintiff. He sub-let the premises and in addition to the rent received a premium of Rs. 1250. u/s 2(12) of the Code "mesne profits" of property means those profits which the person in wrongful possession of such property actually has received or might with ordinary diligence have received there from, and clearly Rs. 1351 was profit received by the first defendant, so the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for that amount together with rent at the annual rate of Rs. 271 for the period for which he sued, less the amount which had been paid by defendant No. 1, namely, Rs. 542.

2.

The plaintiff claims that pleader''s fees are payable on Rs. 5,000 the value of the subject-matter of the suit. We think that contention is sound under the law regulating the charge for pleader''s fees when the suit was filed. The appeal, therefore, succeeds and there must be a decree in terms of the judgment with costs throughout.