Mesne profits are inherent in restitution and can be awarded even without a specific decree for possession, based on the principle of unjust enrichment.

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the order dated 19.07.2023 in E.P.No.13 of 2022 in A.T.C.No.2 of 2003 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur, whereunder an application filed under Order XXI Rule II Clause 1 Section 2 (12), Order 20 Rule 12 and Section 151 C.P.C., by the Petitioner seeking to pass decree for payment of mesne profits from the scheduled land for the years 2006-07 and 2021-22 in favour of decree holder, against Respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5 was dismissed.

2. The introductory facts: The Petitioner filed A.T.C.No.2 of 2003 under Sections 16 and 15 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) against Respondent No.1 alone seeking to declare that the price of the scheduled land i.e. Rs.1,25,000/- per acre is reasonable and the same is accepted by the Respondent and for other consequential reliefs. As per the petition, the husband of Respondent No.1 late Dr.T.Veeraiah, Dr.T.Suryanarayana, Dr.T.Sashagiri Rao and T.Satya Narayana (Retired Engineer) were brothers.

3. The 1^st Respondent was given General Power of Attorney by Dr.T.Suryanarayana to manage the properties, while Dr.T.Veeraiah died testate on 04.02.2002. Pursuant to a Will said to have been executed by Dr.T.Veeraiah, the Respondent No.1 succeeded to her husband's share of family properties situated at Mulukuduru and other places and became the absolute owner of the scheduled property. The Respondent No.1, on her behalf and on behalf of Dr.T.Suryanarayana had filed A.T.C.No.5 of 2002 before the Special Officer under the Act, Ponnur against the Petitioner, Pamidi Koteswara Rao, V.Ramakrishna, C.Paparaju and others regarding existing lease among them. The Petitioner was said to be cultivating Ac.13.65 cents and as there was threat of dispossession, at the instance of brother-in-law of Respondent No.1 i.e. T.Satyanarayana, a suit O.S.No.174 of 2002 was filed seeking permanent injunction. The Petitioner also filed A.T.C.No.3 of 2002 against Respondent No.1 and her brother-in- law, Dr.T.Suryanarayana, T.Satyanarayana and T.Seshagiri Rao to declare him as cultivating tenant of Ac.13.65 cents.

4. A compromise was said to have been entered in O.S.No.174 of 2002, A.T.C.No.5 of 2002 and A.T.C.No.3 of 2002 jointly between the parties and as per the compromise, the Respondent No.1 and her brother-in-law, Dr.T.Suryanarayana, got Ac.10.76 cents, which comprises of Ac.7.04 cents in Sy.No.56/2. Ac.0.10 cents in Sy.No.56/3, Ac.0.36 cents in Sy.No.65/5B, Ac.1.89 cents in Sy.No.473/3 and Ac.1.37 cents in Sy.No.25 and the remaining extents of lands situated in other survey numbers fell to the share of T.Satyanarayana and another brother Dr.T.Seshagiri Rao. As per the compromise, Respondent No.1 and Dr.T.Suryanarayana had agreed to permit the Petitioner to continue cultivating the land in Ac.10.76 cents as tenant and pay maktha to Respondent No.1.

5. As per the Petitioner, an extent of Ac.3.37 cents out of Ac.5.39 cents belonging to Dr.T.Suryanarayana was purchased by him and his wife and entire sale consideration was paid to Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.1, out of her share of land to an extent of Ac.5.37 cents, sold away Ac.0.76 cents in Sy.No.473/3 to one Jasti Sree Vani and Ac.0.68 cents in Sy.No.25 to Venendla Ramakrishna and retained the balance extent of Ac.3.93 cents, which is in possession of the Petitioner as tenant. The Petitioner pleaded that Respondent No.1 had offered to sell the scheduled property and he agreed to purchase the same at the rate of Rs.1,25,000/- per acre. Pursuant to the determination of sale consideration, it was pleaded that the Petitioner was entitled to pay the sale consideration in 10 equal installments of Rs.49,125/- and accordingly the said amount was paid by Demand Draft No.053831, dated 26.09.2003 drawn in the name of Respondent No.1 as per the provisions of the Act and the sale was deemed to be effective.

6. As the Respondent No.1 was not coming forward to execute sale deed, the P