PURNANANDA DATTA Vs. ABINASH CHANDRA CHATTORAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this appeal relates to the principle on which mesne profits should be ascertained in the present case.

(2.) The plaintiffs, who are the appellants before us, were the landlords in respect of the land in dispute. The lands were held by a tenant Mukunda Mandal. He transferred the lands to the defendants. As, however, the holding was a non-transferable occupancy holding, the transfer was invalid and as the tenant had abandoned the land, the plaintiffs were entitled to get khas possession thereof. The plaintiffs accordingly brought a suit for khas possession and mesne profits. They obtained a decree for possession and then applied for ascertainment of mesne profits.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge was of opinion that the mesne profits should be assessed on the basis of the actual produce, and not on the basis of the rent which the plaintiffs had been receiving from Mukunda, the tenant, and he made a decree accordingly. On appeal the learned District Judge held that as the plaintiff was in possession of the land by receipt of rent and as the defendants also, during the period they were in wrongful possession, had been in receipt of paddy rent from the persons with whom they settled the lands, both the plaintiffs and the defendants, were in the position of rent receivers and that, therefore, the mesne profits ought to be assessed on the basis of rent. It may be mentioned here that the learned Subordinate Judge bad disbelieved the defendants case that they had been in possession of the land through tenants who paid paddy rents, but on appeal the learned District Judge held that that case was true. But although the learned District Judge was of opinion that the mesne profits should be assessed on the basis of rent, he allowed mesne profits on the basis of rent which the plaintiffs had been realising before the suit from their tenant.