Summary
The Court held a landlord’s subsequent mesne-profits suit not maintainable where that claim had been unconditionally relinquished in earlier ejectment proceedings and court-fixed occupation payments for the same period had been accepted without objection. The tenant complied with the courts’ conditions and surrendered possession on time. The plaint disclosed no cause of action for reopening that settled period, and the tenant’s appeal was allowed.
Issues
- Whether a fresh mesne-profits suit could reopen a relinquished claim and periods covered by accepted court-fixed occupation charges.
- Whether a genuinely distinct later claim was different from the claim advanced here.
Provisions considered
- Order II Rule 2, read with Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The reproduced whole-claim and relinquishment rules barred revival of the claim surrendered in the earlier ejectment litigation; the judgment distinguished distinct subsequent causes of action. (¶ 13–18)
Held
- The landlord deliberately gave up mesne profits in the earlier suit and did not pursue them in the appellate proceedings. Both parties acted on conditional occupation orders and the landlord accepted the fixed sums without seeking variation. (¶ 7–12)
- A later suit for a genuinely subsequent period may be maintainable, but unconditional relinquishment of a mesne-profits claim in the earlier proceedings attracts Order II Rule 2 as to that claim. The prohibition applied on these facts. (¶ 13–18)
- The tenant complied with the Supreme Court’s final conditions and surrendered possession on 8 October 1998. The landlord could not demand fresh mesne profits for the same period covered by the earlier proceedings and accepted payments; the plaint disclosed no cause of action or clear right to sue. (¶ 18–20)
Result
Tenant’s appeal allowed; subsequent mesne-profits suit held not maintainable and its plaint liable to rejection.