Nagappa Vs. State of Karnataka

.....indeed the duty of the authorities to extend the benefits of the concluded decision of this court to all other similar cases. - [] rule 18 -mesne profits-future mesne profits-whether the decree passed by the court below for future mesne profits from the date of suit without any enquiry under order 20 rule 12(1) (c) or under order 20 rule 18 of cpc is erroneus-held-the trial court ought to have resorted to on enquiry as per order 20 rule 12, cpc or in the alternative, there should have been cogent evidence made available on record. having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the order directing to pay mesne profits does not sustain in the absence of any cogent evidence in that regard and it also does not call for interference to determine the mesne profits as per order 20 rule 12 cpc and the finding of the trial court as well as the lower appellate court in this regard has to be reversed. held: accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part thereby setting aside the finding of the trial court to the effect that the defendant is directed to pay mesne profits to the plaintiffs in respect of 1 acre of the suit schedule property from 1976-77 till the date of payment at the rate of 3/4th share at rs. 5, 000/- per year while affirming the judgement and decree passed by the trial court and confirmed by the lower appellate court holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to 3/4th share in the suit schedule property and for separate possession of their share appeal allowed in part.   - if a decision has been rendered by this court, it would be proper for the authorities to follow and extend the benefit of that decision in like cases coming before them.orderjagannatha shetty, ag. c.j.1. this appeal is directed against the order dated april 2, 1986 of the learned single judge dismissing w.p.no. 2518 of 1986. the petitioners therein are some persons interested either in purchasing or disposing of their landed properties. they apprehend that the circular issued by the second respondent, which has been filed as annexure 'b' to the writ petition, requiring the registering authority to value the property at the rates mentioned therein would affect their interest, if any registration is to be made. the case of the appellants is that similar circular has been held to be invalid by several decisions of this court and in particular the decisions of this court in m.g. kulkarni -v.- state of karnataka, : ilr 1985 kar2152 and nagaraja -v.- state of karnataka, : ilr 1985 kar4113 . 2. we have perused the said decisions and also the averments made in the writ petition. in our opinion, it is not necessary for every person to approach this court for a relief similar to the one already granted by this court in the aforesaid decisions. if a decision has been rendered by this court, it would be proper for the authorities to follow and extend the benefit of that decision in like cases coming before them. that should be the guiding principle to be borne in mind in the administration. it is not proper to drive every person to seek relief in this court. it is indeed the duty of the authorities to extend the benefits of the concluded decision of this court to all other similar cases.3. in our view, it is wholly unnecessary for the appellants to approach this court by way of writ petitions. in view of the law laid down by this court in the aforesaid decisions, which binds all the registering authorities in the state in the similar circumstances, it is not necessary to entertain the writ petition of the appellants.with the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of.