BUDHILAL Vs. MOKHAMCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The facts of this case are sufficiently clear from the two lower Court's judgments. Even accepting the findings of fact arrived at by the lower appellate Court, two contentions have been urged on behalf of the appellant Budhilal. The first of these is that, as the possession of the appellant was not permissive and was not on behalf of his co-owners, the limitation applicable to the case was to be found in Article 109 and not in Article 120, Limitation Act.

(2.) FOR my own part, it seems to me perfectly clear that in the present case the appellant prevented his co-tenants from obtaining from the field such profits as it was capable of yielding and took possession of the whole field as his own. This being so, on the principle laid down by Mookerjee, J., in Mohesh Narain v. Nowbat Patkak [1905] 32 Cal. 837, I am of opinion that the appellant was liable to account for the mesne profits in question, and the decision in Yerulwla v. Yerukola A.I.R. 1922 Mad. 150, with which I respectfully agree, is ample authority for the view that Article 120 is applicable.

(3.) THESE findings, govern the appeal which is dismissed Without notice to the respondents.