SURJA PERSHAD NARAIN SINGH Vs. REID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an application made by the decree-holders, who are the appellants before as, for ascertainment and recovery of mesne profits due to them, the lands in respect of which such mesne profits were claimed having been decreed to them against the defendants, the judgment-debtors.

(2.) There seems to have been a contest between the parties as to the principle upon which such mesne profits should be ascertained. The decree-holders apparently claimed the value of the produce of the lands which the judgment-debtors, during the period of their unlawful possession, actually received, while, on the other hand, the judgment-debtors contended that all that the decree-holders were entitled to receive was the rent at which they might have been able to let out the lands, if they had continued to be in possession, and had not been disturbed in such possession by the defendants.

(3.) The Subordinate Judge did not go into the facts upon which any principle could be applied, but following the case of Raghu Nandan Jha V/s. Jalpa Pattap (1) (1897) 3 C. W. JJ. 748., held that the proper principle was to ascertain what would have been a fair and reasonable rent for the lands, if the same had been let to a tenant during the period of unlawful occupation by the defendants; and he accordingly ruled the point raised between the parties in favour of the judgment-debtors, and directed the ascertainment of mesne profits. The words used in the last portion of his order constitute "an order for the production of evidence accordingly." This, however, motels, as we have just indicated, the production of evidence as regards the amount of mesne profits recoverable, in accordance with the view accepted by the Subordinate Judge.