SUBRAMANIYAN Vs. LAKSHMI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole question arising in this second appeal is whether mesne profits for more than 3 years could be recovered by the decree holder. The case of the decree holder is that the final decree passed in the suit enables him to claim mesne profits till the property is put in his possession by the judgment debtors and as such he is entitled to recover mesne profits even for more than three years. The Trial Court accepted this plea and allowed him to recover mesne profits for more than 3 years; but in appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge has held otherwise. I think the view taken by the learned appellate Judge is the correct one and his order has only to be upheld. The decree must be construed with reference to O.20, R.12 C.P.C., under which no mesne profits beyond three years from the date of decree could be collected. Dealing with the scope of O.20, R.12 a Division Bench of the Travancore High Court held as early as in 1945 that the decree regarding mesne profits should always be in conformity with O.20, R.12 and that no mesne profits could be decreed for a period in excess of 3 years from the date of the decree. For mesne profits beyond three years the plaintiff must be referred to a separate suit: (vide Govindan Sadasivan v. Raman Narayanan 1945 TLR 715). A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Kumar Jagadish Chandra v. Bulaqi Das (AIR 1959 All. 242) held that:

(2.) The judgment of the learned appellate Judge is hence correct and in confirmation of it this second appeal is dismissed.