M/s Raptakos, Brett & Co. Ltd. v. M/s Ganesh Property
Background
The respondent-landlord had leased premises in Calcutta to the appellant-company for 21 years from 1964. Before the lease expired, the landlord sued for recovery of possession, and after an earlier suit failed, filed a fresh Title Suit in 1986 for possession and mesne profits, but ultimately did not press the mesne-profits claim and obtained only a possession decree, which became final in 1998 after the appellant handed over vacant possession. The landlord then filed a separate, later suit (Civil Suit No. 457 of 1998) seeking mesne profits for the very same period already covered by the earlier litigation, and the Calcutta High Court's Division Bench had partly allowed the landlord's claim.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court examined Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which bars a plaintiff from splitting claims arising from the same cause of action and suing for the omitted portion later, especially where a claim was deliberately relinquished in the earlier proceeding. Since the landlord had expressly not pressed the mesne-profits claim in the first suit and that suit's possession decree had attained finality (including a Supreme Court order fixing use-and-occupation charges which the tenant paid), the Court held the tenant's later possession during that period could not be treated as illegal or that of a trespasser. Consequently, the fresh suit for mesne profits for the same period disclosed no cause of action and was barred, so the Court allowed the appellant-company's appeal and set aside the High Court's order permitting the mesne-profits claim.
Lesson Learnt
A litigant who deliberately drops or does not press part of a claim (such as mesne profits) in one lawsuit cannot later file a fresh suit to revive that very claim for the same period and cause of action, all relief relating to one cause of action must be sought together, or it is lost.