Legal title to the land under lease.

This Appeal is filed by defendants 2 to 4 in O.S.No. 29 of 1948 on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Guntur. It relates only to costs and mesne profits.

The suit was instituted against the Provincial Government of Madras, represented by the District Collector, and the tenants, defendants 2 to 4 for possession of suit properties and for mesne profits, past and future. The basis of the suit was that the suit properties, of an extent of about 12 acres, belonged to the plaintiffs. They are lanka lands, which were submerged under the Krishna River several years back but reappeared in or about the year 1943. They adjoin the lands belonging to the 1st defendant. Under a m1staken impression that these and some other lanka lands were part of the Government lankas, the 1 st defendant included them in a lease granted by him to defendants 2 to 4 on the 7th of September, 1944, for a period of three years. Subsequently the plaintiffs, with a view to have the tide to the suit properties ascertained, requested the Government to have a survey of these lands ordered. This request was complied with and the survey disclosed that the suit lands before immersion were the properties’ of the plaintiffs. Therefore, by his proceedings, dated 25th February, 1947, the Collector, Guntur, directed that these lands should not be included in the lease for the next period. In pursuance of this communication the plaintiffs tried to obtain peaceful possession of these lands from defendants 2 to 4 but failed even after the expiry of the lease, owing to the the obstructive attitude of defendants 2 to 4. This obliged the plaintiffs to file the suit for the reliefs mentioned above. The 1st defendant’s plea was that the suit lands belonged to the plaintiffs, that he had no objection to their taking possession of the same that the lessees, though liable to vacate it by the 30th of June, 1947, the date of the expiry of the lease, wilfully and unauthorisedly occupied the same in contravention of terms of the lease, and that therefore, the 1 st defendant was not responsible for the consequences of the unauthorised occupation of defendants 2 to 4 and that in those circumstances no liability could be fastened on him either with regard to mesne profits, (except as to the actual proportionate rental received by him on the suit lands) or costs. The real contesting defendants to the suit were defendants 2 to 4. They res1sted the suit denying the right of the plaintiffs to the lands in question. They also disputed their liability to pay mesne profits on the ground that the lands were leased out to them and “they were tenants holding over with the bona fide belief that fresh leases would be granted to them for a further period of three years”.

The trial Court decreed the suit in toto with costs against all the defendants. Mesne profits were awarded at the rate of Rs. 50 per acre as claimed by the plaintiffs, making all the defendants jointly and severally liable in respect thereof. Defendants 2 to 4 have preferred this appeal confining it to mesne profits and costs as already mentioned, and impleading the State of Madras as one of the respondents.

The first question that falls for decision in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to mesne profits against one or the other of the defendants and if so for what period and at what rate. It may be remarked at the outset that the learned Judge had not considered the question of the liability of the defendants to pay mesne profits. Nor is the discussion relating to the quantum of damages satisfactory. He failed to consider the evidence for the defendants and the admissions of the plaintiffs’ witnesses in that behalf. However, it is unnecessary to devote any discussion to this aspect of the matter in the view I have taken of the liability to pay mesne profits.

The right of the plaintiffs to claim mesne profits depends upon whether the possession of the defendants was wrongful from its inception that is, from t