PANIKKATHE KUTTI PENNU MARUVALAMMAS SON RAGHAVA MANNADIAR Vs. PANIKKATHE KUTTI PENNU MARUVALAMMAS SON THEYYUNNI MANNADIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff -appellant filed a suit for partition and recovery of a half share in the property. The prayer in the plaint runs thus:

(2.) THE preliminary decree declared (1) that the properties available for partition are items 1 to 16 and the jenm right only over item 17 of the plaint schedule; (2) that they are to be divided into two equal shares, the plaintiff getting one share and the first defendant getting the other share. Paragraph (3) dealt with the liabilities. The other paragraphs dealt with outstandings. After the Commissioner prepared a scheme of division, the plaintiff -appellant asked for an account of the profits subsequent to the date of the plaint. In paragraph 9 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition it was stated thus:

(3.) THE next case relied on by the Subordinate Judge is Subbiah v. : AIR1945Mad222 . That was a suit for possession pure and simple. The decree for possession did not contain a direction for an enquiry under Order 20, Rule 12. Subsequently an application was filed asking for the determination of future mesne profits. The trial Court dismissed the application but on appeal the Subordinate Judge held that the application under Order 20, Rule 12 was maintainable. The matter was brought before King, J., and the learned Judge held that as the decree for possession did not contain a direction for an enquiry under Order 20, Rule 12, it was not open to order such an enquiry at a later stage. The suit comes to an end with the decree and there can be no further application for such an enquiry. Reference was made before the learned Judge to the decision in Ghulusam Bivi v. Ahamadsa Rowther, I.L.R. (1918)Mad. 296 and referring to it the learned Judge says this: