Bombay High Court

HINDUSTHAN PETROLIAM CORPORATION and OTHERS.versusFAKRUDDIN HAIDARALI AMBAWALA.

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The appeal is infructuous and is therefore disposed of.

Summary

The respondent filed a suit to recover possession of a leased plot, which was dismissed, leading to an appeal that was allowed. During the pendency of the appeal, the Central Government acquired the property and gave constructive possession to the appellants. The court ordered the appellants to pay Rs.5,000 per month as compensation and future mesne profit, and the S.L.A.O. issued a final award. On review, the court held that the second appeal had become infructuous, as the decree regarding possession was rendered moot, though the original plaintiff retained the right to claim compensation and mesne profit in execution proceedings. Consequently, the appeal and all pending civil applications were disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the second appeal is maintainable after the property was acquired by the Central Government and constructive possession was given to the appellants
Whether the decree of the first appellate court becomes infructuous in view of the change in possession
Whether the original plaintiff is entitled to compensation and mesne profit despite the infructuous appeal

Subjects

possession
lease
mesne profit
compensation
constructive possession
second appeal
infructuous
execution proceedings

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:39742


                                                                           sa134.92
                                                -1-


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                5 SECOND APPEAL NO. 134 OF 1992

                            Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation and others.
                                               VERSUS
                                   Fakruddin Haidarali Ambawala.
                                                   ...
                 Advocate for Appellant : Mrs. C.S. Deshmukh
                 Advocate for Respondents : Mr. Adv. S.P. Sonpawale

                                            WITH
                             CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2030 OF 2006
                                        IN SA/134/1992
                                            WITH
                             CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2649 OF 2005
                                        IN SA/134/1992
                                            WITH
                             CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11671 OF 2003
                                        IN SA/134/1992
                                            WITH
                             CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2936 OF 1993
                                        IN SA/134/1992
                                            WITH
                             CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3530 OF 2022
                                        IN SA/134/1992
                                              …..

                                    CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
                                    DATED : 31st AUGUST, 2026

                 PER COURT :-


                 1.       This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree

                 dated 02.11.1991 passed by the learned Additional District Judge,

                 Aurangabad, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 244 of 1989. The said

                 Regular Civil Appeal was preferred against the judgment and decree

                 dated 19.08.1989 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior
                                                               sa134.92
                                  -2-

Division, Aurangabad in Regular Civil Suit No. 587 of 1983.



2.       The admitted facts in this case are that the respondent had

filed suit for recovery of possession of the land being a part plot No.

old 1919 and new 5-5-88, having CTS No.14453, which was given on

lease to the appellants. The suit was dismissed. The appeal was

allowed against which this second appeal is preferred.



3.       The compensation as well as the future mesne profit were

also awarded. During pendency of this appeal, the suit property was

acquired by the Central Government and it is handed over by

constructive possession to the appellants.



4.       This court, by order dated 15.12.1992, while deciding the

application for granting stay, directed the appellants to pay an

amount of Rs.5000/- per month towards compensation and future

mesne profit.   The S.L.A.O. has passed the final award and the

compensation is determined and some amount out of that as per the

final award of S.L.A.O. is received.



5.       After hearing both sides, this Court is of the view that this

appeal becomes infructuous and even the decree passed by the first

appellate court also become infructuous to the extent of handing over
                                                                   sa134.92
                                    -3-

of the possession as decreed by the trial court.            However, the

respondent-original plaintiff has every right to recover the amount as

per the impugned judgment and decree in the execution proceedings.

It is submitted that the plaintiff has right to file the suit for

compensation as he was deprived from the fruits of the said disputed

property.



6.          Considering all these aspects the appeal becomes

infructuous and therefore, it is disposed of.



7.          It is clarified that till the date of taking constructive

possession of the property, the plaintiff is entitled for the mesne profit.

For that purpose, the final award passed by the S.L.A.O. or other

documents are relevant which can be considered by the executing

court while determining the amount.



8.          All pending civil applications are also disposed of.



                                     (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.)

rlj/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…