GANGA DIN Vs. PIYARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal must be allowed. The plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court. They purchased certain zamindari rights and also mesne profits admittedly payable by defendant 1, to the plaintiffs vendors. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought for recovery of possession and mesne profits. The suit succeeded in the Court of first instance. On appeal the learned District Judge dismissed the suit, so far as it claimed mesne profits, on the ground that transfer of mesne profits was a transfer of a "mere rights to sue" and was therefore invalid in law, having regard to the provisions of Section 6, T.P. Act.

(2.) With all respects to the learned Judges who decided the case of K. Seetamma V/s. P. Venkatramanayya [1913] 38 Mad. 308, I am unable to hold that a right to claim mesne profits is a mere right to sue within the meaning of Section 6, T.P. Act. I may point out that in the Madras High Court itself the soundness of this decision has been doubted in Venkatarama V/s. Ramasami A.I.R. 1921 Mad. 56.

(3.) Mesne profits has been defined in the Civil Procedure Code as: those profits which the person in wrongful possession of such property actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received therefrom, together with interest on such profits.