The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Order XX Rule 12 (1) (c) CPC in relation to the entitlement of mesne profits and the period for which they would be payable to the decree-holder.

JUDGMENT

1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed against the Order dtd. 10/8/2022 passed in I.A.No.297 of 2020 in I.A.No.295 of 2020 in O.S.No.23 of 2011 on the file of the XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur at Narasaraopet.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

3. Original Suit No.23 of 2011 on the file of the XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur at Narasaraopet was filed by the petitioners seeking partition of the schedule property and allotment of the shares to the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 and for future profits. The court below, vide judgment dtd. 14/5/2020, passed a preliminary decree directing division of the property into 100 equal shares and granting 30 shares each to petitioner No.1 and petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 on behalf of petitioner No.2, and the remaining 40 shares were granted to respondents 1 to 3. The petitioners filed I.A.No.295 of 2020 in the said suit for passing a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree and also filed I.A.No.297 of 2020 in the final decree petition for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for ascertaining mesne profits. The Court below allowed the said petition, appointing an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain mesne profits from the date of decree and file his report. Aggrieved by the said Order, the present revision is filed.

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled to the mesne profits from the date of the suit but not from the date of decree. It is his submission that the petitioners sought future profits in the suit and the preliminary decree also contemplates that future profits shall be decided by way of separate application, and that Order XX Rule 12 (1) (c) CPC also contemplates inquiry as to mesne profits from the date of institution of the suit.

5. On this aspect, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the following decisions.

(a) In Chitturi Subbanna v. Kudapa Subbanna and others, . wherein it is held thus: (paragraph 34).

"We may now consider the question from another aspect. Rule 12 Order 20 CPC requires the Court to direct, at the time of passing the preliminary decree, an inquiry as to mesne profits from the institution of the suit until the actual delivery of possession of the property to the decree-holder or until the expiration of three years from the date of the decree whichever event first occurs. The Court at the time of the passing of the decree is not in a position to say which of the three events mentioned in clause (c) of sub-rule (1) or Rule 12 will determine the period for which mesne profits would be payable to the decreeholder. Either, therefore, the court has to repeat the various alternatives mentioned in this clause in the judgment and the decree which is to follow the judgment or the judgment and the decree for mesne profits is to be construed in accordance with these provisions. It is preferable to construe it in this way rather than to insist that the court should mechanically repeat in the judgment and decree the various provisions of clause (c). It may sometimes even happen that the enquiry into mesne profits is completed before the expiry of 3 years and that the final decree follows in due course while in fact no possession had been delivered by then. It would not be possible for the judgment-debtor to contend at that time that the decree has not been properly prepared and that it should state that in case possession is not delivered within the period of three years, mesne profits would be payable only for the period of three years from the date of the decree. It does not appear to be desirable that the passing of the final decree be put off till either possession is delivered or a period of three years had expired from the date of the decree."

(b) In R.S.Maddanappa (deceased) by his LRs v. Chandramma and another, AIR 1965 SC 18