KARUPPA KUDUMBAN Vs. AROKIAM SERVAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to reconvey an item of Immovable property. The suit was filed by an assignee from the original vendor. The defendant who had bound himself to reconvey the property resisted this suit. He said that the agreement of reconveyance was not assignable. He put for ward other defences too. The trial Court upheld these defences and dismissed the suit. On appeal, the Sub -Court reversed this decision and decreed the suit in the plaintiff's favour.

(2.) The defendant has now brought this second appeal against the appellate decree. The argument of his counsel, Mr. R.G. Rajan, was however directed not so much against the decree passed by the appellate Court for specific performance, as such, but against another part of the decree to which I must now refer. It appears from the record that before the trial Court the plaintiff had also prayed for mesne profits to be directed to be paid by the defendant. The trial Court while dismissing the suit for specific performance naturally rejected this prayer for mesne profits too. The Sub -Court, however, entertained this plea and while decreeing the suit for specific performance and directing the defendant to execute a reconveyance, further directed an inquiry into mesne profits under Order 20, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) Mr. Rajan's submission in this appeal is that this part of the Sub -Court's decision is wholly misconceived. Ho said that this is not a case in which mesne profits could be directed to be paid by the defendant. He said that such a direction is opposed to the very idea of 'mesne profits' as understood in our system of law.