TMI Blog1964 (9) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment. As the judgment of the High Court somewhat varied the decree granted by the Subordinate Judge the learned Judges granted a certificate of fitness under Article 133(1) of the Constitution. Appeals 106 and 107 have been filed by the Mahant while the Devasthanam Committee have preferred appeals 108 and 109. 2. The properties which arc the subject- matter of these proceedings belong to the Idol installed in the famous temple of Tirupathi in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The East India Company were, till about the middle of the last century, in management and administration of the properties of this famous temple of Lord Venkatesvara or Srinivasa, also known as Balaji in Northern India and the other connected temples, and after the Madras Regulation 7 of 1817 was passed it was placed under the control and management of the Board of Revenue who carried on the administration through the Collector of the District. As is well-known, there was a movement in England in about 1840 which disapproved a Christian Government like the East India Company being in-charge of or administering Hindu or Muslim religious institutions and the Board of Directors in conformity with these ideas, effec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sting under Section 5 the Mahant of Tirupathi who is the appellant in Civil Appeals 106 and 107 of 1962 and the respondent in the other two appeals ceased to have the right to remain in possession of the properties of the Devasthanams. This obvious position was emphasised by a specific provision contained in Section 45 of the same Act which read: The Committee shall be entitled to take and be in possession of all the institutions, properties, jewels, records and documents of the Devasthanams. Provision was also made for the contingency of the Committee not being able to obtain possession voluntarily. Section 45 (2) was this provision and it ran: If in obtaining such possession the Committee is resisted or obstructed by any person it may make an application to the Court complaining of such resistance or obstruction and the Court shall, unless it is satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was occasioned by any person claiming in good faith to be in pos session on his own account or by virtue of some right independent of that of the Devasthanams, make an order that the Committee be put into possession. Such order shall, subject to the result of any suit which may be f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner to take evidence and submit a report in relation to this question of mesne profits and elaborate enquiry was held when considerable evidence was led by the parties as to the quantum of mesne profits payable. The only thing to be noticed in this connection is that the Mahant did not produce several of his accounts and that is one feature of the case to which some reference would have to be made in view of some of the arguments addressed to us. Objections were filed to the report of the Receiver and after considering these the learned Subordinate Judge, by his order dated March 28, 1952 ascertained what the mesne profits would be in respect of the properties covered by the two suits and granted a decree therefor to the Devasthanam Committee with interest at 6 per cent from the date of his decree till realisation. 7. Aggrieved by this decree the Mahant filed appeals to the High Court which substantially reduced the amount of the mesne profits and also reduced the rate of interest allowed by the learned Subordinate Judge. It is this decision of the learned Judges that has been attacked on contrary grounds by the Mahant in appeals 106 and 107 and by the Devasthanam Commit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... selves referred to this observation and have proceeded to state that the fact that the Devasthanam would have the benefit of the walls and other constructions put up by the Mahant would be a factor which they would take into account in ascertaining the amount of mesne profits payable on this item. We have no basis before us for saying that the learned Judges in the judgment now under appeal have not understood the earlier judgment of the High Court properly. 9. The allowance which they made for this factor, viz., that the Mahant was not claiming to demolish the walls etc. which he had constructed for the purpose of rendering the stables into a shopping space was 1/3rd of the rental and deducting this they passed a decree in favour of the Devasthanam for the other 2/3rds. Learned Counsel urged that this division into 1/3rd and 2/3rds was arbitrary. There is no substance in this argument either, because, in a sense, any allocation would be arbitrary and the suggestion that we should reverse the proportion and allow 1/3rd to the Devasthanams and 2/3rds to the Mahant is about as arbitrary as the order now challenged. We must lake it that in fixing this proportion, the learned Judges ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim of the Devasthanam to possession without surrendering the property was admittedly bound to pay mesne profits. This, it may be stated, is not disputed. The question raised are, however, two: (1) when is the aggregation of the principal amount of the mesne profits and the interest thereon to be made for the purpose of the total carrying further interest? (2) What is the rate of interest to be charged. The learned trial Judge allowed interest at 6 per cent for the calculation of interest which is part of mesne profits. Having calculated mesne profits on this basis he aggregated the amount of mesne profits i.e. income from the several items of property plus the interest on it up to the date of the plaint i.e., January 10, 1946. On the total sum so ascertained he decreed interest at 6 per cent. till the date of his decree i.e., March 28, 1952. He passed a decree for this sum with further interest at 6 per cent till the date of realisation. 12. One of the principal points raised by the Mahant in the two appeals which he filed to the High Court related to this method of computing the interest. His complaint was that two dates were specified by the trial Judge at which interest be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the decree to the date of payment. The section was amended so as to read: Order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, with further interest at such rate not exceeding six per cent per annum as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum from the date of the decree to the date of payment. This point, however, was not argued before the High Court even though admittedly the amendment had been in force for over six months before the appeal was disposed of, and, in fact, as we have already stated the mode of calculation adopted by the High Court was that which was submitted as the correct one by Counsel for the Mahant. Secondly, this was not an objection taken in the grounds of appeal taken to this Court when seeking a certificate, nor is it raised in the statement of case. Nor is the objection clearly without an answer. In the first place, the decree of the trial Court was passed in 1952. Without pausing to enquire whether the relevant dale for deter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the section before its amendment though Courts as, a general rule seldom awarded any rate in excess of 6 per cent p.a. Learned counsel is, therefore, right in saying that the rate of 6 per cent granted by the learned trial Judge is not per cent unreasonable. The amended Section 34, Civil Procedure Code is, in fact, a statutory recognition that 6 per cent is not by itself an unconscionable or an unreasonably high rate. Besides, this rate was not considered unreasonable or improper by the Mahant himself is also clear from the proceedings. The Commissioner in the report that he made to the Court on May 14, 1951 in which he ascertained the mesne profits payable by the Mahant, computed the interest from June, 1933 onwards at 6 percent. Elaborate objections were filed by the Mahant to this report, but so far as the interest allowed was concerned the objection was formulated in ground 40 in these terms: 'The Commissioner erred in awarding interest on the income supposed to have been derived from the properties by the Mahant. The Commissioner ought to have noted that this was not a case of mesne profits at all as the Mahant cannot be said to have been in wrongful possession of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urged before the High Court and the learned Judges, after referring to decisions in most of which 6 per cent was allowed and in one 4 per cent, summarised the position thus: The Courts have awarded 6 per cent simple interest on mesne profits unless there are special circumstances to increase or decrease the rate in a particular case. The same rate is ordinarily awarded on the profits which accrued every year from the date of such accrual till the dale of decree and also on the aggregate amount from the date of the decree till the date of the payment. According to the view expressed by us the learned Judge should have awarded interest on yearly profits in respect of each item at the same or different rates from the dale of arrears accruing up to the date of the plaint, from the date of the plaint upto the passing of the decree and thereafter on the aggregate amount on the principal and interest till payment. Upto this point, learned counsel for the Devasthanam Committee submitted that the learned Judges were right. His complaint, however, is as regards the reduction of the rate of interest from that awarded by the trial Judge and his submission is that the reasons given by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly has no equity which he can put forward in support of his possession. We see considerable force in this submission. The title of the Devasthanam to the property was disputed and suits had lo be filed for the recovery of their possession, and litigation conducted which look 12 years to finish from 1933 lo 1945. If during this period the Mahant appropriated lo himself the income from the property we do not see any justification for his not being made liable for interest at the normal rate. In any event, if the trial court in its discretion awarded interest at 6 per cent, and that is admittedly not per se an unreasonable rate, there was no compelling equity in the Mahant to justify interference, with that discretion. 19. The first of the reasons given by the learned Judges does not also appeal to us. It is, no doubt, true that the properties of the Mutt and of the Devasthanam wore mixed up in the hands of the Mahant but these two were being held by the Mahant in two distinct capacities -- the first as the head of the Mutt and the other as the Vicharanakartha of the Devasthanams i.e., purely as manager. The fact was that in the first set of properties he might have a beneficial in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the quantum of mesne profits in regard to items 7, 8 and 9 had not been properly calculated and a similar complaint was also made in respect of Pathapushkarni with which appeal 109 is concerned. We have closely examined the judgment of the High Court and are satisfied that this complaint is without foundation. The learned Judges have made a detailed examination of the evidence and have allowed to the Devasthanam profits on whatever sources of income which were proved to have existed at the relevant dates. In the circumstances, we do not consider this submission tenable. 23. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the learned judges erred in deducting in respect of house property collection charges at 10 per cent. The argument was that though while considering several of these items the learned Judges had expressed the view that 10 per cent of the estimated income could be allowed as the collection charges, in the concluding portion of the judgment they had stated that as regards House property they would allow only 1/12th for that purpose. For this reason it was submitted that the decree drawn up which allowed 10 per cent as collection charges was wrong and not in accordance w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
