(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaint comprised 3 heads of claim and the Courts below have dismissed the suit in respect of all those claims on grounds of law. It is much to be regretted that the questions of fact arising in the case remain to be investigated hereafter, after the lapse of several years.
(2.) The following are the circumstances that led up to this suit. The plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 90 of 1924 on the file of the Mangalore Sub-Court, for recovery of possession of certain properties with mesne profits and certain alienees were impleaded as parties thereto. The defendants to the present suit were defendants 8 and 9 in the former suit. That suit was referred to arbitrators and an award was passed on 13 September 1926 to the effect that the plaintiff would be entitled to take possession of the properties in the possession of the present defendants on depositing into Court on the next Vishu Shankramana day (middle of April 1927) a sum of Rs. 2,600 for payment to the defendants as compensation for improvements effected by them. The award went on to add that the plaintiff was not entitled to any mesne profits until the deposit was made and it was next observed that: Defendants 8 and 9 being in possession under the term lease are liable to pay rent for the two years ending Vishu Shankramana next, viz. Rs. 100 in all to the plaintiff. . . . . from the date of deposit into Court the plaintiff is entitled to recover mesne profits from defendants 8 and 9 till recovery of possession at the rate to be ascertained if necessary after the deposit.
(3.) On the filing of this award into Court, a decree was passed on 28 September 1926 merely to the effect that the award be made a decree of Court. No formal decree with various clauses corresponding to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code was drawn up. The money directed to be deposited was deposited only on 31 August 1927, and the plaintiff obtained possession through Court on 17 October 1927.