A plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits from the institution of the suit until the delivery of possession to the decree-holder or the relinquishment of possession by the judgment-debtor with notice to the decree-holder or the expiration of three years from the date of the decree whichever event first occurs.

( 1 ) IN the suit brought by the present appellant against these respondents he obtained a decree, the relevant portion of which was in the following terms:"plaintiff's title to the lands of Schedule Ka to the extent of l/5th share is hereby declared. He will get possession therein and will remain in possession of the same jointly with the defendants. Plaintiff's exclusive title to the lands of Schedule Kha is declared. He will get khas possession there in by evicting the defendants therefrom. His claim for damages or compensation is dismissed. He will get mesne profits in respect of the lands of Schedule Kha so long as they remained in possession of the defendants. The amount of the same will be determined hereafter in accordance with law. "this decree was made on 13-3-1951. We are informed that the plaintiff actually recovered possession of the Kha Schedule land sometime in May 1954. Long before this date, on 5-5-1951 he made an application for the appointment of a commissioner for investigation as regards the mesne profits. The Commissioner reported that the plaintiff was entitled to a sum of Rs. 854/- on account of mesne profits in respect of produce grown in the land for the years 1354 to 1357, that he was also entitled to a sum of Rs. 659-9-0 for the years 1353 to 1357 in respect of profits out of standing fruit hearing trees, that he was further entitled to a sum of Rs. 283-12 in respect of trees cut and taken away including Velki bamboos and finally to a sum of Rs. 250/- in respect of fish taken from the tank. The trial Court accepted this report and after making some further provisions in respect of mesne profits for the year 1358 in respect of produce grown in the lands and mesne profits out of standing fruit trees and also as regards fish taken from the tank held that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for mesne profits for Rs. 2260-13-0 and after the plaintiff paid additional court-fees in view of sums now assessed he made a decree in his favour for a sum of Rs. 2260-13-0. The defendants appealed. The learned Judge who heard the appeal considered himself free to examine the correctness of the preliminary decree which had been made in March 1951 and held that the plaintiff was not legally entitled to recover any mesne profits from his co-sharers in respect of either of the plots in Schedule Kha save and except a sum of Rs. 200/- on account of price of bamboos cut down and appropriated by the defendants out of C. S. plot No. 162. He also refused to accept the Commissioner's finding as regards mesne profits in respect of fish. Accordingly, he set aside the trial Judge's order directing the payment of Rs. 2260-13-0 on account of mesne profits and directed the defendants to pay a sum of Rs. 200/- only on account of mesne profits.

( 2 ) THE first question raised on behalf of the appellant against the decree of the lower appellate court is that the learned Judge was not free to consider the legality of the preliminary decree. No appeal was taken against that preliminary decree and so the learned Judge in ascertaining the mesne profits was bound to proceed on the basis that the decree for mesne profits was correctly made. This is certainly the correct legal position and Mr. Guha who appeared before us on behalf of the respondents conceded at once that he was unable to support the view of the learned court below that the correctness of the preliminary decree could be questioned by him. He, however, contended that the application for mesne profits should be rejected on the ground that it was premature. He has drawn our attention to the provisions of Clause (c) of Order 20 Rule 12 (1) which provides that the enquiry as to mesne profits under this clause may be for the period from the institution of the suit until (1) the delivery of possession to the decree-holder (2) the relinquishment of possession by the judgment-debtor with notice to the decree-holder through the Court, or (3) the expiration of t