The possession of a Receiver appointed by the Court during the pendency of a suit should be regarded as possession for the party who might ultimately turn out to be the true owner and entitled to possession as such. Therefore, the defendant, who was appointed as the Receiver, was not liable to pay mesne profits for the period after his appointment.

( 1 ) THE facts in the suit for partition, recovery of possession and mesne profits, which has given rise to these two appeals, are long and complicated. But the question involved in these two appeals arising from the decree of mesne profits passed in the suit is a short one and does not necessitate the narration of those facts.

( 2 ) AS is obvious from the definition of "mesne profits" in S. 2 (12) of the Civil P. C. and also the provisions relating thereto in O. 20, R. 12 of the Code, a decree for mesne profits can be passed for the profits which the person in wrongful possession actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received together with interest thereon. The liability to pay mesne profits would, therefore, be obviously confined to the period during which the person to be charged therefore was in wrongful possession. The moment the possession ceases, whether by delivery of possession or by relinquishment, the liability to pay mesne profits also ceases, as indicated in Cl. (c) of R. 12 of O. 20. But if in any given case, the possession of the judgment-debtor, which was wrongful at certain stage, ceases to be wrongful, would his liability to pay mesne profits still continue thereafter until delivery of possession to the decree-holder or relinquishment of possession by him with notice to the decree-holder, as indicated in O. 20, R. 12 (c)? In other words, if the possession of the judgment-debtor, which was wrongful, changes its colour and quality and ceases to be wrongful, would he still be liable to pay mesne profits for the period thereafter. That is the short question that has fallen for our consideration in these appeals.

( 3 ) WHEN the suit, giving rise to these appeals, was decreed in preliminary form, the learned Judge, while granting the preliminary decree, directed inter alia as hereunder :-"the plaintiff would also be entitled to possession of his half share on partition on eviction of the defendant therefrom. An enquiry be made for determination of the mesne profits in respect of the plaintiffs half share from the date of the expiry of the lease till recovery of possession. "

( 4 ) IN appeal to this Court by the defendant against the preliminary decree, being F. A. No. 554 of 1965, it was urged that the plaintiff and the defendant being co-sharers, the possession of one was to be treated as possession of the other as well and as such the Court below was wrong in passing a decree for mesne profits. It was, however, pointed out by this Court that even though the defendant was a co-sharer he was nevertheless possessing the entire joint property on some lease and that after the expiry of the lease, the defendant was still claiming possession of and possessing the entire joint land in dispute. as such lessee and not as a co-sharer. This Court held that the defendant, though otherwise a co-sharer, was accordingly liable to pay mesne profits for the period from the expiry of the lease and this Court, therefore, by its judgment dated 13-7-71/16-8-71 confirmed the preliminary decree for mesne profits.

( 5 ) IF the matters stood at that only, then under the decree of the learned trial Judge for mesne profits "from the date of expiry of the lease till recovery of possession" which was also confirmed by this Court, the plaintiff would have been entitled to mesne profits for the entire period till such recovery of possession. But when the matter came back to the Court below, the Court while determining the quantum of mesne profits took notice of the fact that in the suit, even before the preliminary decree was passed, a Receiver was appointed though it was the defendant who was appointed as the Receiver, and the Court below thought that in view of having been appointed such a Receiver the defendant could no longer be liable to pay mesne profits after such appointment, even though the defendant itself was the Receiver. If this is the right view, the plaintiff's appeal shall fail. We