Mesne Profits

Meaning: The term ‘mesne profits’ means the claim that a lawful owner of the
property has against the unlawful possessor of the property.

Mesne profit is one such right to compensation granted against injuria i.e. breach
of legal right or invasion of another's right. Mesne profit is a positive right
available against infringement of private legal right.

The object of awarding a decree of mesne profits is to compensate the person

who has been kept out of possession and deprived of enjoyment of his property.

The idea of granting mesne profits as compensation normally connotes reparation

(restoration of something to its original state) for some past wrongful act i.e.
unlawful possession.
Legal Provision related to Mesne Profits: Mesne profits may be defined as the
profits or other pecuniary benefits, which one who disposes the true owner receives
between dispossession and the restoration of possession.

Section 2(12) of CPC, 1908, “Mesne profits of property means those profits which
the person in wrongful possession of such property actually received or might with
ordinary diligence have received therefrom, together with interest on such profits,
but shall not include profits due to improvements made by the person in wrongful
possession.”

Phiraya Lal alias Piara lal vs. Jia Rani AIR 1973 DEL 186, the Delhi High Court
while defining the term mesne profits observed that, “when damages are claimed in
respect of wrongful possession of the immovable property on the basis of the loss
caused by the wrongful possession of the trespasser to the person entitled to the
possession of the immovable property; these damages are called as mesne profits”
Object:

Every person has a right to possess his property and when he is deprived of
such right by another person, he is not only entitled to restoration of
possession of his property, but also damages for wrongful possession from that
person. The mesne profits are thus a compensation paid to the real owner.

When a person is deprived of the right to possess his property, then the amount
of delay that it takes for restoration of such property must also be considered.

In Lucy Kochwareed v. P. Mariappa Gounder (1979) 3 SCC 150 Supreme

Court observed that the object of awarding a decree for Mesne profits is to
compensate the person who has been kept out of possession and deprived of
enjoyment of his property even though he was entitled to possession thereof.
Against whom mesne profits can be claimed:

Wrongful possession of the defendant is the essence of a claim for mesne

profits and the very foundation of the defendant's liability therefor.

As a rule, therefore, generally a person in wrongful possession and enjoyment

of immovable property is liable for mesne profits. It is very clear that mesne
profits can be claimed with regard to immovable property only.

Thus, a decree for mesne profits can be passed against a trespasser, or against
a person against whom a decree or possession is passed, or against a
mortgagee in possession of property even after a decree for redemption is
passed, or against a tenant holding over at will after a notice to quit has been
served upon him.
Where the plaintiff is dispossessed by several persons, every one of
them would be liable to pay mesne profits to the plaintiff even
though he might not be in actual possession or the profits might not
have been received by him.

The Courts in such cases may hold all the trespassers jointly and
severally liable, leaving them to have their respective rights adjusted
in a separate suit for contribution; or may ascertain and apportion the
liability of each of them.

*A contribution claim is a claim brought by one or more defendants

to a lawsuit for money damages brought by a plaintiff.
Assessment:

Mesne profits being in the nature of damages, no invariable (constant) rule

governing their award and assessment in every case can be laid down and
"the Court may mould it according to the justice of the case". (Fatch Chand
v. Balkrishan Dass, AIR 1963 SC 1405). In other words, there is no uniform
criterion for the assessment of mesne profits. The quantum of mesne profits
depends upon the facts and surrounding circumstances of each case.

It is settled principle of law that the criteria for the test to ascertain mesne
profits is not on what the owner has lost by the deprivation of possession
but profits should be calculated on the basis of what the person in wrongful
possession namely, the defendants had actually received or might with
ordinary diligence have received therefrom.
Interest on Mesne profits:
The definition of the term ‘Mesne profit’ provided under Section 2(12) of
the CPC, 1908 explicitly provides that interest is an integral part of mesne
profits. From the expression ‘together with interest on such profits’ in
Section 2(12) it is apparent that ‘mesne profit’ includes within its fold an
interest component and the rate of interest varies depending upon the facts
and circumstances of each case. Since the statute does not fix any rate of
interest it is left at the discretion of court to determine the rate of interest.
Generally, the rate of interest is awarded at 6% per annum.

In N. Dasjee v. Tirupathi Devasthanam, AIR 1965 SC 1213, Hon’ble SC

observed that, “Under Sec 2(12) of the CPC which contains the definition of
mesne profits, interest is an integral part of mesne profits and has, therefore,
to be allowed in the computation of mesne profits itself…”.
Deductions:

Moreover, the law of equity requires that mesne profits should be the net
profits i.e. the profits derived after making deduction toward necessary
expenditure for earning such profits.

Therefore all such payment made by the person in wrongful possession,

as the plaintiff would have been bound to make if he had been in
possession, should be deducted from the gross earnings.

These expenses include, land revenue, rent, cess paid, cost of cultivation
and reaping, the charges incurred for collection of rent, etc.
Burden of Proof:
It is settled principle of law that in case of mesne profits the burden of proof rests on
the claimant i.e. the plaintiff. Mesne profits being in the form of compensation,
before claiming mesne profits, the plaintiff have to establish before the Hon’ble court
that he was lawful owner of the property and he was deprived of it by the unlawful
possession of the defendant. The plaintiff having proved the aforementioned facts
becomes entitled to mesne profits. Further the onus of proving what profits he might have
received with the ordinary diligence lies on the claimant.

In the case of Ramakka v. Nagesam, AIR 1925 Mad 145c Hon’ble Madras High
Court while considering the question of onus of proof in case of mesne profits held
that “onus of proving what profits might, with due diligence (the care that a
reasonable person exercises), have been received in any year lies upon the party
claiming mesne profits”. The court further observed that, “Plaintiff may also adduce
evidence to prove that the occupant was not diligent and might have got greater
profits by proper diligence”.