KOTHAPEDDA NARSA REDDY Vs. SUGRA BEGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the final judgment and decree for mesne profits passed in O.S. No. 2 of 1954 on the file of the District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. Defendants 1, 3 to 5, 8 and 10 are the Appellants in A.S. No. 143 of 1967 and the other appeal is preferred by the plaintiff in the suit.

(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants in 1954, for possession of 14 items of land together with past profits for three years and future profits till delivery of possession alleging trespass against them. This suit was decreed in 1964 granting the relief of possession and also (directing ascertainment of mesne profits in a separate application to be filed by the plaintiff under Order 20, rule 12, Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiff accordingly moved the Court below in I.A. No. 73 of 1962, for ascertainment of past and future profits for a total period of 11 years including three years prior to the date of the institution of the suit. The learned District Judge appointed an advocate as commissioner to inspect the lands, receive evidence and report to him about the profits. A number of witnesses were examined by both the parties before the Commissioner in the course of the enquiry which he tbereafter held. On the basis of the evidence of those witnesses and his personal inspection of the lands, the commissioner made a report to the Court below on 16th August, 1962 assessing the profile, at Rs. 53.346-26. Both sides filed objections to this report and also adduced evidence, both oral and documentary, before the trial Court. On a consideration of the evidence adduced in the case and the probabilities obtaining therein, the learned District Judge enhanced the profits payable to the plaintiff to Rs. 55,552-75. Neither party is satisfied with this decision and hence these appeals.

(3.) The contention of the plaintiff is that the sum awarded to her by way of mesne profits by the Court below is too low while the defendants complain that it is excessive. It is further urged by Sri Jeevan Reddy, the learned Counsel for the defendants that the appeal itself preferred by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed in limine for non-payment of Court-fee as she is not entitled to claim exemption from liability to pay the same under the notification issued pursuant to section 39 of the Hyderabad Court-fees Act. The questions that, therefore, arise for consideration in these appeals are (1) whether the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to claim exemption from liability to pay Court-fee on the memorandum of appeal on the basis of the notification issued under section 39 of the Hyderabad Court-fees Act and (2) to what amount is the plaintiff entitled by way of mesne profits.