POLURU RANGA RAO Vs. KOPPOLU RAMADOSS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy that has arisen in these appeals has to be answered with reference to Sections 144 and of the Civil Procedure Code. The matter came up before our learned brother, Umamaheswaram J., and he referred it to a Bench as the value of the properties, which are the subject-matter of these appeals, is more than Rs. 10,000.00.

(2.) The question arises in the following circumstances : The trustees of the temple of Sri Chennakesava-swamy of Polur village, Guntur district, instituted O. S. No. 5 of 1940 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tenali, for recovering possession of 13 acres of inam dry land, alleging that the property was originally attached to Devadasi service and on the abolition of the service, it reverted to the temple. The alienees from the Devadasis were the defendants in the suit. The trial Court decreed the suit and in execution proceedings the trustees entered possession on 7-4-1946. The decree was confirmed by the lower appellate Court; but on Second Appeal, the High Court reversed the judgment of the Courts below and dismissed the suit. After the second appeal was allowed, the defendants obtained re-delivery of the land on 29-7-1951. Thereafter, they filed the petition which has given rise to these appeals, for mesne profits for the period during which they were out of possession, i.e., from 7-4-1946 to 29-7-1951.

(3.) The basis adopted by them for calculation of mesne profits was what they themselves would have realised if the lands were personally cultivated. This position was contested by the trustees who maintained that the basis should be the actual rents realised from the tenants or what would have been got with due diligence. It was also submitted that since they did not realise rents for one year from the tenants, they should not be made liable for rents in regard to that year.