PUTTANNA SETTY Vs. NAGARATNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second Appeal by the defendants does not give rise to any substantial question of law which is required to be decided under S. 100 of the C.P.C.

(2.) The plaintiff's suit for possession and mesne profits was decreed. A sum of Rs. 5120/- was determined as the mesne profits payable in the proceedings following the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Against that finding in awarding mesne profits, an appeal was filed in the Court of the I Additional Civil Judge, Mysore, in R.A. No. 189/1976 claiming that the amount of money spent by the defendant In removing the accumulating sand on the suit agricultural lands has not been given deduction as an expense for improvement of land by the Courts below in calculating the mesne profits.

(3.) The lower Appellate Court after hearing the present appellant came to the conclusion that removal of sand had become necessary as a result of the sand accumulating on the suit agricultural land after floods year after year and that such removal did not amount to an improvement effected to the land in as much as it was only restoring the land to its cultivable character. That view is correct.