Judgment.-The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for partition and recovery of a half share in the property. The prayer in the plaint runs thus:

“(a) Directing that the properties mentioned in the sub-joined schedule be divided into two equal shares and the properties allotted to one of such sharers be given to the possession of the plaintiff and that the properties belonging to the first defendant’s share be made a charge for the Court costs and other amounts due to the plaintiff by the first defendant;

(b) Directing the first defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs of this suit with interest; and

(c) Granting other reliefs which the plaintiff may pray for in the course of this suit and which the Court might deem fit to allow.”

The preliminary decree declared (1) that the properties available for partition are items 1 to 16 and the jenm right only over item 17 of the plaint schedule; (2) that they are to be divided into two equal shares, the plaintiff getting one share and the first defendant getting the other share. Paragraph (3) dealt with the liabilities. The other paragraphs dealt with outstandings. After the Commissioner prepared a scheme of division, the plaintiff-appellant asked for an account of the profits subsequent to the date of the plaint. In paragraph 9 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition it was stated thus:

“As defendants 1 and 2 are thus holding possession of the properties in the schedule to the. decree and enjoying the profit, the plaintiff is entitled to get towards his share 350 paras of paddy per annum with interest 2 per cent from the date of plaint to the date of his getting actual possession of his half share, and accordingly having ascertained the amount, the same may be directed to be paid by the first defendant or if necessary by the second defendant.”

One of the objections was that there was no specific prayer in the plaint for profits from the date of suit and the other was that the preliminary decree did not deal with the question of profits and did not contain a direction that the defendants should be liable for profits. The trial Court refused relief on two grounds: firstly that the plaint did not ask for mesne profits subsequent to the date of suit and secondly that as the preliminary decree did not contain any direction about the profits subsequent to the date of suit, the plaintiff was not entitled to ask for it at the stage of the final decree. In support of this proposition, the decision of this Court in Ghulusam Bivi v. Ahamadsa Rowther1, was relied upon. On appeal the Subordinate Judge followed the decision in Ghulusam Bivi v. Ahamadsa Rowther1, and confirmed the decision of the trial Court. The Subordinate Judge says that the decision in Ghulusam Bivi v. Ahamadsa Rowther1was confirmed in alater decision in Bapa Lakshmamma v. Koteswara Rao2and that it was again referred to with approval in Subbiah v. Kotamma3. When his attention was drawn to a decision of this Court in Ramaswami Aiyar v. Subramania Aiyar4the Subordinate Judge says this:

"The decision in Ramaswami Aiyar v. Subramania Aiyar4, does not really seem to be an authority for the opposite position in any direct way. That case if at all can apply to the present one only by an extension of the principles actually laid down therein. I do not think that in the light of the direct authorities on the question it would be proper to apply the case in Ramaswami v. Subramania Iyer4, as laying down a contrary proposition.

In Ghulusam Bivi v. Ahamadsa Rowther1the suit was one for partition and the preliminary decree did not contain any direction as to the profits subsequent to the date of suit. At the stage of the final decree a request was made for enquiry on that matter. The learned Judges referred to two provisions of the Code, Order 20, rules 12 and 18. They first referred to Order 20, rule 12 which applies to a bare suit for possession. It was pointed out that if the decree for possession did not contain a direction for an enquiry in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document