1. This is an appeal by the 2nd Defendant against the revised judgment by the learned Sub-Judge after remand in O.S. No. 117 of 1922. The only point argued relates to the decree passed against the 2nd Defendant for the past mesne profits. The 2nd Defendant is the son of the 1st Defendant who is now dead and Defendants 3 and 4 are his uncles, being the-brothers of the 1st Defendant. The Plaintiff has become the purchaser of the one-third undivided share belonging to the 1st Defendant in the suit items.

2. The Appellant says that no decree should have been passed against him as he and his father were not in possession of the family properties and as the profits of the properties were all along being enjoyed by Defendants 3 and 4. The learned Judge did not accept this view of the case. Defendants 3 and 4 say that the profits of the properties were being enjoyed in shares by the Defendants. The leases of the properties were sometimes given by the 3rd Defendant and sometimes by the 4th but the profits were enjoyed by all the brothers each taking his share. How they were enjoying the properties is detailed in the evidence of the 3rd Defendant. The written statement of one of the t