A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court of India, in the landmark judgment Raja Bhupendra Narain Singha Bahadur v. Maharaj Bahadur Singh and Others (1952), addressed the critical issue of whether a zamindar could claim an equitable set-off against mesne profits owed to a patnidar for a period after possession had already transferred to the patnidar. This case was rooted in protracted litigation spanning over five decades and involved complex interactions of landlord-tenant obligations, equitable reliefs, and the doctrines of set-off. The Court decisively held that such an equitable set-off could not be permitted as the demands of the zamindar (pertaining to rent and cess) arose from a different and unrelated transaction compared to the claim for mesne profits, which was based on wrongful possession by the zamindar. The decision reinforced principles of equity by denying a wrongdoer any leverage to reduce liability through unrelated post-possession claims. The judgment clarified the scope of equitable set-off in Indian jurisprudence and established critical guidelines on the calculation of interest on mesne profits and the limits of cross-demands in equity.

Keywords: Equitable set-off, mesne profits, patnidar, zamindar, wrongful possession, Bengal Act VI of 1870, landlord-tenant dispute

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: Raja Bhupendra Narain Singha Bahadur v. Maharaj Bahadur Singh and Others

ii) Case Number: Civil Appeals Nos. 68 to 92 of 1951

iii) Judgement Date: 2nd April 1952

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: Mehr Chand Mahajan, Chandrasekhara Aiyar, Vivian Bose, JJ.

vi) Author: Justice Mehr Chand Mahajan

vii) Citation: [1952] SCR 782

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:
Sections 50 and 51 of Bengal Act VI of 1870,
Order XIX Rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules,
Principles of equitable set-off and mesne profits under Civil Procedure Code

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any): None explicitly overruled

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects: Property Law, Civil Procedure, Land Revenue Law, Law of Torts

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

This case emanated from long-standing litigation that commenced in 1904 and involved disputes between zamindars and patnidars regarding the possession of chowkidari chakran lands. Initially vested in the village watchmen on service tenures, these lands were resumed by the Government under Sections 50 and 51 of the Bengal Act VI of 1870 and settled with the zamindar, leading to the dispossession of the patnidar. The patnidar, asserting his superior title, sought possession and mesne profits. The courts below oscillated in their opinions, with eventual decrees favoring the patnidars. After multiple appeals and a reference to the Privy Council, the matter reached the Supreme Court post-abolition of the Privy Council jurisdiction in India. The crucial question was whether the zamindar, who had wrongfully possessed the land before delivering it, could reduce the mesne profit liability by setting off claims of rent and cesses that accrued after the patnidar had lawfully regained possession.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The patnidars in 1904 filed suits asserting their title over lands resumed by the Government and wrongfully retained by the zamindar after resumption. These chowkidari chakran lands were originally exempt from rent due to their service tenure character. The Government’s resumption disrupted this arrangement and led to new settlements with the zamindar, bypassing the patnidar’s superior leasehold interest. The High Court and ultimately the Privy Council upheld the patnidars’ claims and awarded them possession and mesne profits. Possession was delivered between 1910 and 1913.

Subsequent proceedings aimed to calculate mesne profits. The zamindar claimed an equitable set-off against these profits for rents and cesses due post-possession. The trial court allowed deductions only up to the possession date. However, the District Judge reversed this, granting the set-off even for post-possession dues. On further appeal, the High Court reinstated the trial court’s view, prompting the current appeal to the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether equitable set-off can be allowed against mesne profits for amounts like rent and cesses accrued after possession passed to the patnidar?
ii) Whether the mesne profits should bear interest, and at what rate?
iii) Whether the rent (munafa) due to the zamindar should be based on profits or annual assets under the principle of Radhacharan v. Maharaja Ranjit Singh (1918) 27 C.L.J. 532?

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that
The zamindar had continued obligations for the land such as payment of cesses and revenue. These were necessary expenditures, incurred for the benefit of the property now with the patnidar. Thus, they contended that equity required a deduction from mesne profits to prevent unjust enrichment. They relied on the concept of equitable set-off, arguing that these obligations stemmed from the same series of transactions, involving the very same land.

They further urged that interest on mesne profits should not exceed 4%, citing delays on part of the patnidars in initiating the mesne profits inquiry. They also proposed a revised computation of munafa not solely on the basis of revenue assets, but on a fair share of the actual profits earned.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that
The set-off claim for post-possession dues was untenable in law. The mesne profits accrued from the illegal occupation of land. The rent and cesses sought to be adjusted arose from a different legal relationship – that of a landlord and tenant – and hence could not be connected as part of the “same transaction.”

They argued that allowing such a set-off would enable a trespasser to benefit from his own wrong. The equitable doctrine of “he who seeks equity must do equity” should bar such a claim. They relied on legal maxims and precedents, asserting that equity does not aid a volunteer and no man shall profit from his own wrong.

They also defended the 6% interest rate as a reasonable deterrent for wrongful withholding of possession and delay in settlement of accounts.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Bengal Act VI of 1870, Sections 50 and 51: Enabled resumption of service tenures like chowkidari lands and allowed the Government to resettle them.

ii) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 144 & Order VIII Rule 6: Governs restitution and set-off principles.

iii) Equitable Doctrine of Set-off: Requires both cross-demands to arise from the same transaction, be mutual, and be subsisting.

iv) Radhacharan v. Maharaja Ranjit Singh (1918) 27 C.L.J. 532: Addressed munafa/rent calculations in patni-zamindari arrangements.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i) The Supreme Court ruled that equitable set-off cannot apply where the claims do not arise from the same transaction. Mesne profits were owed for the period of wrongful possession. Rent, revenue, and cesses payable post-possession stemmed from a separate legal obligation. Hence, the set-off claimed by the zamindar failed the mutuality test.

The Court emphasized that equity does not support a wrongdoer. The zamindar could have pursued separate legal action for recovery but failed to do so. Thus, he could not belatedly seek relief under the guise of set-off.

b. OBITER DICTA (IF ANY)

i) Justice Mahajan observed that allowing a set-off in such a situation would defeat the ends of justice by helping a party who had wrongfully withheld possession. He remarked on the importance of not letting protracted litigation be used as a tool for delaying justice.

c. GUIDELINES 

• Equitable set-off requires that both claims arise from a single transaction.

• Cross-demands must be connected in nature and time.

• Wrongdoers cannot invoke equity to avoid liabilities.

• Interest on mesne profits should not be excessive unless delay is unjustified.

• Munafa should be calculated per binding precedents like Radhacharan unless circumstances dictate otherwise.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court firmly denied the equitable set-off claimed by the zamindar, aligning itself with established equitable doctrines. The decision promotes the principle that equity cannot serve as a refuge for wrongful possessors. It also draws clear boundaries between legal and equitable claims, especially in protracted revenue-related disputes. Importantly, the Court’s intervention helped restore the correct interpretation of landlord-tenant relationships under Indian land law and limited the misuse of equitable doctrines in revenue recovery settings.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Radhacharan v. Maharaja Ranjit Singh, (1918) 27 C.L.J. 532.

2. Ananda Kumar Ghose v. Krishnadhan Banerji, (1916) 43 Cal 936.

3. Gokaldas v. Puranmal, ILR 34 Bom 247 (Set-off principles).

4. Srinivas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad, AIR 1951 SC 177.

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Bengal Act VI of 1870, Sections 50 and 51 – Resumption of chowkidari lands

2. Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order VIII Rule 6 – Set-off

3. Supreme Court Rules, Order XIX Rule 4 – Grounds of Appeal

4. Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Equity principles and obligations

5. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Landlord-tenant obligations