RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a Special Appeal against the judgment of Mr. Justice Oak allowing the execution second appeal by the respondents-decree-holders.

( 2 ) KUNWAR Jagdish Chandra, appellant, the owner of the plot in dispute leased it to Bulaqi Das and Narain Das respondents for a term of 11 years on 31-10-1930. The respondents sub-leased the plot and the sub-lessee constructed a building on it. Later on the appellant purchased the materials of that building when sold in execution of a decree and took possession of the plot and the building. In 1933 the respondents instituted the civil suit out of which has arisen this appeal for the recovery of possession and mesne profits against Jag-dish Chandra, appellant. On 2-1-1935 the suit was decreed for possession as well as for mesne profits and the decree directed payment of pendente lite and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 30/-per mensem until delivery of possession.

( 3 ) JAGDISH Chandra filed an appeal against that decree and the decree-holders filed a cross-objection. The appeal was dismissed. The cross-objection was allowed to the extent that the rate of mesne profits was enhanced by Rs. 5/- per mensem. A second appeal by Jagdish chandra was dismissed summarily by this Court sometime in 1939.

( 4 ) THE decree was then put in execution and Jagdish Chandra filed an objection with regard to the amount payable under the decree. The Court ordered that the amount for which execution shall be carried out shall be Rs. 3671-8-6 as due. upto 16-11-1944, He also filed an appeal against the amount determined by execution court, and contended that the mesne profits upto 1944 could not be allowed. The appellate court partly allowed the appeal directing that the mesne profits would be recovered under the decree for a period of three years only from the date of the decree of the High Court. Bulaqi Das who was one of the decree-holders filed an execution second appeal on the ground that the appellate court was wrong in holding that mesne profits could be recovered for a period only to three years from the courts decree- Jagdish Chandra filed a cross-objection to the effect that no decree for mesne profits could be passed for the period subsequent to the expiry of the lease in favour of Bulaqi Das appellant and which took place on the 31st of October 1941. The learned Judge allowed the appeal of Bulaqi Das and dismissed the cross-objection of Jagdish chandra. Jagdish Chandra has now filed this Special Appeal and prays that it be decreed and that the respondents are entitled to recover mesne profits only for a period of three years from the 2nd January 1935, the date of the decree of the trial court.

( 5 ) TWO points are raised by the appellant. One is that the decree in execution, though saying that mesne profitswere payable upto the delivery of possession, is really a decree for the payment of mesne profits in accordance with the provisions of Rule 12, Order 20 of the Code of Civil procedure and is therefore a decree for payment of mesne profits upto three years from the date of the decree as no possession was actually delivered to the decree-holder. The second point is that no mesne profits can be recovered after the date on which the decree-holder ceased to be lessees and consequently ceased to be entitled to the possession of the land in suit. It is contended for the respondents that the execution Court cannot go behind the decree, that the terms of the latter are clear and allow mesne profits upto the delivery of possession, and that therefore the respondents are entitled to recover mesne profits upto the date of the delivery of possession.

( 6 ) WE are of opinion that the contention for the respondents must fail and that the appeal must succeed in part. Order XX, Rule 12 is in these terms:

" (1) Where a suit is for the recovery of possession of immoveable property and for rent or mesne profits, the Court may pass a decree (a) for the possession of the property; (b) for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document