CHEMMANGHAT KUNNATH MELETHIL RAMANKUTTY VAIDYARS WIFE Vs. M K GOPALAKRISHNA IYER THE PRESENT EXECUTIVE TRUSTEE OF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question that arises in this second appeal is whether the first defendant-appellant is Jiable to pay mesne profits. The relevant facts may be briefly stated. The properties described in the schedule annexed to the plaint belong in 'jenm' to Sree Meenak-shisundareswara Swami Devaswom in Puttur Amsom, Palghat taluk. The temple was an ancient one and from its origin it was under the management of Naduvil Edam. The Edam had on various occasions in the past demised the properties on kanoms and also mortgaged them. On 253- 1929 one Pangi Achan of the Edam executed a possessory mortgage to the first defendant in regard to the suit properties for Rs. 3000 under Ex P. 4. As the Devaswom was mismanaged, on 30-11-1935 the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board framed a scheme and the 1st plaintiff was appointed as executive officer. The second plaintiff is his successor. Defendants 2 to 4 are the members of Naduvil Edam. The temple by its executive officer filed O. S. No. 231 of 1943 on the file of the District Mun-sif's court, Palghat, for possession of the suit properties and for mesne profits. The learned District Munsif of Palghat held that the mortgage deed was supported by consideration and that the mortgagee was a bpna fide creditor but that the mortgage was invalid as it was executed in contravention of the provisions of Section 76 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. He further held that the defendant would be entitled to the cost of improvements under the Malabar Compensation for Tenants' Improvements Act (I (1) of 1900) (hereinalter referred to as "the Act") but was liable to pay mesne profits. In appeal tne learned Subordinate Judge also accepted the said findings, though he made some slignt modifications in regard to the amount of mesne profits payaole by the first delendant to the plaintiff. The first defendant preferred the above second appeal.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant confined his arguments to tne sole question of mesne profits. He contended that his client would not be liable to mesne profits as he was a statutory tenant under the Act and therefore was not in wrongful possession of the suit lands. The answer to the question turns upon the "consideration of the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 3(1) of tne Act defines a "tenant". It reads :

(3.) Section 5(1) says: