Article 51: (Art. 109 of the Act of 1908):
The period of limitation for a suit for the profits of immovable property belonging to the plaintiff which have been wrongfully received by the defendant is three years and the time of limitation begins to run when the profits are received.
Image Source: 1.bp.blogspot.com
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Article 51 requires the following conditions to be satisfied for application:
(i) The suit should be for profits of immovable property belonging to the plaintiff;
(ii) The profits must have been actually received by the defendant; and
(iii) The receipt should be wrongful.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The word ‘profits’ in Article 5, is wider than the expression “mesne profits”. In Kanakraj v. B.V. Sundararaju Iyer, (AIR 1968 Mad. 394), it has been stated that the expression ‘mesne profits’ is associated with a person in wrongful occupation of the property who has either actually received the profits or should with ordinary diligence have received the same. A claim for mesne profits in a suit for possession is governed by Art. 51.
The word ‘received’ means ‘actually received’. If the defendant did not realise any profit from the property, no suit for recovery of profits can be brought against him under the Article 51.
The basis of the application of Art. 51 is ‘wrongful receipt’ of the profits by the person that has to account for the profits. An act is wrongful if it infringes the equal right of another. The words “wrongfully received” do not require that the case must be one where the possession of the defendant must have originated from a wrongful act. In S. Ramaiya v. Surycinarayana, (AIR 1949 Mad. 279), it has been held that where the licensee received the profit from the property after the expiry of the licence i.e. during the period when he did not have any legal right to possess such receipt of profits attracts the Article 51.
In Shri Mahadeoji v. Baldeo, (AIR 1941 Nag. 181), it has been held that the suit for recovery of profits realised by the defendant from the property entrusted to him for safe custody and management does not attract the Art. 51 because he was in rightful possession and realised the profits lawfully for and on behalf of the plaintiff.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Under Art. 51, the starting point of limitation is the date when the profits were received, and not from the date when the cause of action to recover those profits arose.