SRI RAJA RAO SRI SWETACHELAPATHI RAMAKRISHNA RANGARAO BAHADUR GARU, RAJA OF BOBILLI Vs. AYYAGARI SODEMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is from the order passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge of Vizagaptam in R. P. 44 of 1924, which arose out of a suit filed by one Sodemma against the Maharaja of Bobilli for recovery of a certain land, on the ground that it was granted to her husband, who was a sheristadar of the estate, as inam. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the claim, but on appeal to the High Court it was decreed. It is aid that an appeal is now pending before the Privy Council. The execution petition was to recover mesne profits for three years before suit and until delivery, or for the years 1913 to 1921. The decree awarded profits at the rate of 6 garces 27 putties per annum but did not fix the rate at which the grain was to be converted into money. This is one of the questions which now arises for decision. The only other question is whether the learned Subordinate Judge was right in awarding interest.

(2.) The arguments have dealt with three possible rates of conversion: (a) the rate of Rs. 61-8 0 as claimed in the plaint, (b) the takshish rate applicable to the Bobill Estate. (c) the market rate as recorded in the Gazette, with or without any deduction.

(3.) Now as to (a): the first contention is that as the plaintiff named this rate in the plaint she cannot be allowed anything in excess of it. But that was a. question for the Court which passed the decree, which was at liberty, if it thought fit, so to limit the claim. The executing Court cannot go behind the decree, and is only concerned with its true construction. The question we have to decide is this: the decree awarding to its holder 6 graces 27 putties of paddy per annum over a series of years, what is the correct equivalent in cash which the judgment-debtor should pay? The other argument for a rate of Rs. 61-8-0 per garce is that it is the commutation rate for estate jeroyiti lands, as fixed by a decree of this Court, since mesne profits of property are to consist in those profits which the person in wrongful possession of such property actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received. The question of interest will be considered later it is urged that their measure must be what the judgment-debtor would as zamindar have received for these lands as jeroyiti lands. There is, I think, no real basis for this argument, because it loses sight of the fact that the property was not jeroyiti land at all, but inam land which the zamindar had no right in as landholder. Admittedly the commutation rate, which was fixed with reference to. prices prevailing over the years 1898 to 1908, is much below the average market rate for the period under reference, 1913 to 1921. Although no doubt the definition of "mesne profits" requires that the estimate should be based upon what the judgment-debtor, and not what the decree-holder, received or might have received, it certainly does not mean that regard must be had to any limitations or restrictions under which the judgment-debtor would have laboured, had the property been what he represented it to be. The plaintiff herself does not claim more than would be due to a person in possession of the property as a. receiver of rent, and under the terms of the decree it must be as a receiver of rent in kind that the respondent's liability must be fixed.