SINNAPAPPAL ALIAS SINNAKALIAKKAL Vs. SUBBANNA GOUNDAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by one Sinnapappal alias Sinnakaliakkal for revising and setting aside the order of the District Judge of Coimbatore, dated 13th September, 1955, in an unnumbered appeal by her against mesne profits of Rs. 9,766 found as due by her in respect of certain property under a decree of this Court, directing her to pay ad valorem Court -fee of Rs. 712 -7 -0 instead of the Court -fee of one rupee she had paid, as on an appeal against an order under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, taking refuge in the fact that the mesne profits were determined in E.P. No. 1165 of 1953, in O.S. No. 406 of 1942 by the District Munsif of Gobichettipalayam who was in this case the person who could hear and determine the Execution Petition as, well as hear and determine a petition under Order 20, Rule 12, Civil Procedure Code, for mesne profits.

(2.) THE petitioner had contended before the learned District Judge that as a Bench of this Court had, in S.A. No. 429 of 1946, decided on nth April, 1949, observed that so far as the properties in S.A. No. 429 of 1946 were concerned, the plaintiffs would be entitled to mesne profits at a rate to be ascertained in execution proceedings from the date mentioned in the plaint, and as the District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam, had determined the mesne profits to be Rs. 9,766 in E.P. No. 1165 of 1953 in O.S. No. 406 of 1942, in consequence of this direction, the ruling of Beaumont, C.J., in Balaramacharya v. Chidambaragowda : A.I.R. 1938 Bom. 320, would come into operation and entitled the petitioner to pay a Court -fee of only one rupee as in the case of an appeal against an order under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code.

(3.) I have perused the records, and heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Additional Government Pleader contra. Mr. R. Ramamurthy Ayyar, for the petitioner, could not adduce any authority for holding that even now, after the amendment of Section 47, mesne profits could be determined in execution proceedings instead of in a petition under Order 20, Rule 12, Civil Procedure Code. Beaumont, C.J., himself in the decision relied upon by him, has held that it is only formerly, and before the amendment, that that was permissible, and that now mesne profits have to be ascertained in a petition under Order 20, Rule 12, Civil Procedure Code. To quote his words,