Read Time: 05 minutes

The Supreme Court on Thursday remarked that the market rate as per the current potential of the suit property should be considered while deciding on the amount of mesne profits to be granted to the property owner.

In a case where while reducing the amount of mesne profits, the Rajasthan High Court weighed in that the premises was residential, being used for residential purposes and the construction was about 100 years old and that the report of the approved valuer was with respect to commercial premises, the top court disagreed with the High Court's decision of reducing the mesne profits to 50% terming it to be a 'mechanical' approach.

"....the High Court has not at all considered the market rate as per the current potential of the suit property. The High Court has mechanically reduced the mesne profits to 50%. Even if the valuer’s report was for commercial use/commercial property, in that case also, the mesne profits could not have been reduced by 50%", said a bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna.

The Rajasthan High Court had partly allowed the writ petitions preferred by one Vasudev Mangal – judgment debtors and had dismissed the writ petitions preferred by Anar Devi, the judgment creditor, reducing the amount of mesne profits during the pendency of the first appeals before the first appellate court.

Anar Devi had filed four different suits for recovery of possession of the disputed suit property.

It was her case that the respondents were in possession of four different portions of her residential house as licensee and that she was entitled for restoration of possession as well as mesne profits on termination of their licence. All the four suits came to be decreed by the trial court.

The first appellate court stayed the execution of the trial court's judgment and changed the rate of mesne profits.

The High Court had further reduced the rate of mesne profits and refused to enhance the amount.

After considering the market rate of the suit property, the top court went on to modify the profits to be paid on a per month basis.

The appeal was thus partly allowed with a direction to the first appellate court to expedite the appeal before it.

Cause Title: Anar Devi (D) through LR vs Vasudev Mangal Etc. Etc.