AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Following the observations of the Privy Council in the case quoted by the lower appellate Court, Lala Kalyan Das v. Sheikh Maqbul Ahmad
(1917) 35 M.L.J. 169 (P.C.) interest at a sufficient rate may be substituted for the profits which the person in possession under a mortgage decree
which was subsequently varied, enjoyed during the period between his execution of the first Court''s decree and his giving notice that he had
deposited the additional amount.
It was unnecesary to remand this case for ascertainment of the mesne profits. The defendants were not entitled to recover possession merely
because the amount of compensation for improvements was increased vide Manian alias Subramanian Pattar Vs. Kuthiravathath Kottayil Raman
styled Kuthiravathath Nayar and Another, and Sankaran Nambudripad v. Sankaran Nair ILR (1921) M. 961; but u/s 144 of the CPC they were
entitled to interest or other compensation consequential on the variation of the first Court''s decree.
We set aside the Subordinate Judge''s order of remand and direct that the petitioners do recover interest on the additional compensation amount
awarded at 12 per cent, from 4th April, 1919 when plaintiff took delivery till 1st March, 1920 when the defendants became aware that the amount
had been deposited. Each party will bear their own costs in these restitution proceedings in the lower Courts. In this Court appellant will get his
costs.