In a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property, the Court has jurisdiction to pass a decree for future mesne profits even if there is no claim for past mesne profits.

( 1 ) THIS Full Bench has been constituted on a reference made by the learned single Judge of this Court (Mulye J.) in Second Appeal No. 105 of 1972. Though the precise question referred to this Bench has not been, formulated, learned counsel for the parties agreed that the question arising in this reference is as follows:

"where in a suit for recovery of possession of immoveble property there is only claim for future mesne profits from the date of the suit and there is no claim for past mesne profits, whether the Court is empowered to pass a decree for future mesne profits, while passing a decee for possession of the property"

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this re-ference have been set out in the order_ of reference,. In a suit instituted by the plaintiff-respondent against the appellant for revovery of possession of a parcel of land, the plaintiff claimed mesne profits from the date of the institution of the suit till possession, but no claim was made for past mesne profits. On behalf of the defendant appellant, it was contended, relying upon two Division Bench decisions of this Court in Deepchancd v. Sukhlal (1969 MPLJ 434) : (AIR 1969 Madha Pra 232) and in Karansingh v. Fundibai (Civil First Appeal No. 26 of 1965 ). that as the plaintiff had failed to claim past mesne profits, no relief could be given to the plaintiff under Order 20, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure by awarding future mesne profits. The learned single Judge was of the opinion that the two decisions of this Court in Deep-chand's case (supra) and Karansingh's case (supra) required reconsideration. That is how this question has come up before us for consideration.

( 3 ) SHRI Chaphekar the learned counsel for the plaintiff. contends that the power of a Court to award mesne profits flows from the provisions of Order 20. Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it is mot necessary to make a claim for mesne profits. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in R. S. Maddanappa through L. Rs. v. Chandramma (AIR 1965 SC 1812), Bhagwati prasad v. Chandramaul (AIR 1966 SC 735) and Gopalakrishna Pillai v. Meenakshi Ayal (AIR 1967 SC 155 ). In reply. Shri Garg, the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant, contends that if mesne profits are not claimed in a plaint, a court has no jurisdiction to pass a decre for mesne profits. Relinace is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohammad Amin v. Vakil Ahmad (AIR 1952 SC 358) and two Divi-son Bench decisions of this Court in Deepchand's case (AIR 1969 MP 232) (supra) and Karansingh's case (supra)'.

( 4 ) BEFORE we proceed to appreciate the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be useful to turn to the provision of Order 20, Rule 12 C. P. C. , which read as under:--

"order 20. Rule 12: Decree for possession and mesne profits. (1) Where a suit is for the recovery of possession of immoveible property and for rent or mesne profits, the Court may pass a decree- (a) for the possession of the property; (b) for the rents, which have accrued on the property during the period prior to the institution of the suit or directing an enquiry as to such rent; (ba) for the mesne profits or directing an enquiry as to such mesne profits;, (c) directing an inquiry as to rent or mesne profits from the institution of the suit until:-- (i) the delivery of possession to the decree-holder. (ii) the relinquishment of possession, by the judgment-debtor with notice to the decree-holder through the Court or (iii) the expiration of three years from the date of the decree, whichever event first occurs. (2) Where an inquiry is directed under Clause (b) or Clause (c) a final decree in respect of the rent or mesne profits shall be passed in accordance with the result of such inquiry. " From a perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that a Court has jurisdiction to pass a decree for mesne profits in a suit, provided the suit is for the recovery of possession of immovable proper