DEVI RAM ETC. Vs. RAM RATTAN AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the District Judge, Mahasu, confirming on appeal the judgment of the Senior Subordinate Judge and decreeing the suit of Ram Rattan for recovery of Rs. 1500/ - as mesne profits in respect of a certain parcel of land said to be in wrongful occupation of Devi Ram and others. The Plaintiff Ram Rattan came to Court with the allegations that he was owner of the land and that Devi Ram and others started occupation of the land as trespassers. It was further stated that in December, 1962 Ram Rattan had filed a civil suit against Devi Ram and others who were held to be trespassers and a decree for possession was granted in favour of Ram Rattan. The Plaintiff being entitled to possession claimed mesne profits for three years and the suit for Rs. 2,000/ - was filed with an additional prayer for mesne profits till the date of the delivery of the possession.

(2.) The ownership of the Plaintiff was admitted by the Defendants but the claim for mesne profits was denied. It was stated that the Defendants were the tenants and although the decree for possession was passed by the civil Court the same was under appeal and as such should not be adhered to. A plea under Sec. 30 of the Himachal Pradesh Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953, was availed of, inasmuch as it was contended that the Revenue Court alone had the jurisdiction to grant a decree for rent and no mesne profits were payable to the Plaintiff. At any rate it was contended that the claim was excessive and so much amount could not be awarded.

(3.) The learned Senior Subordinate Judge decreed the suit for Rs. 1500/ - and repelled the plea regarding jurisdiction. Devi Ram and others came in appeal before the District Judge and there too they were unsuccessful. The decree for mesne profits was maintained. They have now come up in second appeal.