The court clarified that under O.23 R.3 CPC, the court has the power to pass a decree for mesne profits beyond three years if it is part of a lawful agreement or compromise, and that 0.20 R.12 CPC does not prohibit the court from decreeing future mesne profits for more than three years.

1. This second appeal arises from an order in execution. A mortgage property was leased by the mortgagee to the mortgagors. For arrears of rent due to him and recovery of possession of the property from the lessees (i.e. mortgagors) the mortgagee brought the suit in which this second appeal has arisen. The suit was compromised, and a compromise decree was passed on 1.2.1112 in terms of the compromise petition. The compromise decree provided that, on account of the arrears, the defendants were to make three payments on specified dates, that if two of those three instalments were defaulted the plaintiff could recover possession of the property with future rent from the date of plaint to date of recovery of possession, and that if the three payments were duly made, defendants could continue to hold the property on the same terms as those provided for in the lease deed. On the default of the defendants to make the payments as per the compromise decree, the plaintiff applied for recovery of possession with future rent from date of plaint to date of recovery of possession. The defendants raised many objections to the plaintiff's application but this second appeal relates only to one of their objections. The claim to realise future rent till date of recovery of possession was allowed by the execution court. The lower appellate court also allowed that, claim subject to this limitation, viz., that since the defendants-mortgagors had already sued for redemption of the mortgage and also deposited in that suit the mortgage amount due to the mortgagee, plaintiff can realise mesne profits only from the date of the suit to the date of the deposit of the mortgage amount in the redemption suit. This second appeal is filed against the lower appellate court's order, and the point taken in it is that the plaintiff is entitled to recover future rent only from the date of plaint till the expiration of three years after the date of the decree and not till the date of the deposit of the mortgage amount which was made after the expiration of three years from the date of the decree.

2. The appellant's contention is that the claim for mesne profits should not be allowed for the period in excess of the three years after the date of the decree. In support of this contention he relies upon 0.20 R.12 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is true that by 0.20 R.12 CPC the court is given power to pass a decree for mesne profits only for the period from the date of the suit until the expiration of three years from the date of the decree. But the decree in this case was not passed under 0.20 R.12 CPC but under 0.23 R.3 which provides:

"Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise, or where the defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect of the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the suit, the court shall order such agreement, compromise or satisfaction to be recorded, and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith so far as it relates to the suit".

Under O.23 R.3 CPC the court is bound to pass a decree in terms of the compromise petition if the agreement embodied in the compromise petition is lawful and relates to the suit. The mere fact that

under O.20 R.12 CPC the court has no power to pass a decree for mesne profits for any period beyond the expiration of three years from the date of the decree will not render an agreement by the defendant to pay mesne profits for the period beyond three years illegal or void. There is nothing unlawful or inherently illegal in an agreement by the defendant to pay mesne profits for any period beyond the expiration of three years from date of the decree. In Chitaley's Commentaries on the Code of Civil Procedure it is said that the word 'lawful' occurring in 0.23 R. 3 CPC means lawful within the meaning of the Contract Act, that is to say, the rule requires an agreement which is legally enforceable. There is nothing in a con