The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation of liability for mesne profits to properties in possession of the parties and those allotted to the plaintiff and defendant-3 in a partition suit.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision by judgment-debtors-4 (A) and 4 (B) against the order dated 16-10-1984 passed by the Munsiff, kumta, in Execution Case No. 53 of 1981 holding that the decree is executable.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT-1 Honnamma had filed a suit in O. S. No. 310 of 1945 on the file of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kumta, against 17 defendants for partition and possession and also for a declaration that the sale deeds executed by defendants-1 and 2 were not binding on her. A preliminary decree came to be passed in that suit in February 1947. It reads as:

( 3 ) THE shares of plaintiff and defendants-1 to 3 in the suit house are declared as below : - for plaintiff's share : ELIHI and a. ISINIMI. For defendant-3's share : IHKIB and minipoi. For defendant-2's share: LIF JIN and OIPIQIGI. For defendant-2's share : HJICKand giqiribi. Defendant-3 should erect walls along IL and LB in the ground floor. Plaimiff and defendant-3 should construct a wall between Ml and Nl. Defendant-2 should erect a wall along MKI and RISI and should construct a wall along HJI and ZQI. Dffendant-1 should construct a wall between Ol and PI. A wall should be constructed by plaintiff on PIG and another by defen- dant-2 on MKI. Plaintiff, defendant-3 and defendants-1 and 2 should construct wall along AIMI, MIOI, Olgl, and GIBl respectively. The space SIDICIRI in the storey shall be jointly enjoyed by plaintiff and defendants-1 to 3 by using the staircase in RICI. If the parties fail to carry out the directions as above, they are allowed to get the walls, etc. , made in ex cution proceedings at the cost of the defaulting party or parties. Plaintiff and defendsnts-1 to 3 are at liberty to have doors to their respective shares in the story along RISI. The sale of suit serials 1 to 3, 5 to 7, 9 to 25, 29 to 35 under Exh. 93 and the sale of suit serials 4, 35 to 44, 46 to 65, 67, 68, 70 to 80a, 81 to 102 under Exh. 85 is set aside so far as the 1/3rd share of defendant-3 therein is concerned provided he pays RE. 400/- to defendant-14 and Rs. 2,000/- to defendant-4. It is hereby declared that the plaintiff, defendants-1, 2 and 3 are each entitled to 1/4th share in such serials 8, 26 to 28, 45, 66, 69, 60 BCD, 104 to 115 to 11 5 and their defendant-3 is entitled to1/3rd share in suit serials 4, 36 to 44, 46 to 65, 67, 68, 70 to 80a, 81 to 102, 1 to 3, 5 to 7, 9 10 25, 2s to 35 if he makes payments of the amounts as directed above. Partition of the lands shall be effected by the Collector, his Gazetted subordinate deputed by him in that behalf in the light of the above directions end possession delivered to plaintiff. Partition shall be so effected that the portions of the suit lands sold to defendants-5 to 13 and 15 to 17 (viz. , suit serials 52, 53, 54,56, 36, 37, 39, 40,47,48,49,58,59,60, 4, 50, 51, 80a, 61, 62, 63, 38, 41, 42 and 62), should goes far as possible go to the shares of defendants-1 and 2 and the portions of the lands adjacent to the share of the parties in the house should go to the respective parties. Defendant-3 may be put into possession of his shares in the lands and the house as declared above provided he pays necessary Court fees due to Government. Parties to bear their own costs. 28th february, 1947. Sd/- civil Judge. " defendant-4 in the said suit was the father of the present judgment-debtors-4 (A) and 4 (B) Defendants-1 to 3 were the members of a joint family of which the plaintiff was a member. Defendant-4 was an alienee of some of the properties from defeno'ants-1 and 2, revision-petitioner. 2 is the son of plaintiff-1 Honnamma and her husband Bommayya. The plaintiff Honnamma was awarded 1/4th share in some properties. Defendant-3 Vinayak was held to be entitled to 1/3 share in some properties. The determination of the profits was ordered under Order 20 Rule 18 C. P. C.

( 4 ) IN pursuance to the preliminary decree, there was an actual partition and as per that partition the plaintiff and defendant-3 were put in possession of t