Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

21. We think that the award of mesne profits for only three years before suit is not correct. Mr. Subrahmanyam has contended that the position of a purchaser in Court auction like defendant 1 is that of a tenant in common with the other-coparceners, and for that position he has relied on cases reported in -- Naro Gopal v. Para Gowda Basagowda, AIR 1916 Bom. 130 at p. 131 (L) --'Veerappa. v. Anantharaman', 53 Mys H. C. R. 438, (M) -- '19 Mys C. C. R. 67 at p. 69 (N) -- '22 Mys. C. C. R. 293 at page 295 (O). He urges that if the purchaser is treated as a tenant in common the claim for mesne profits by a coparcener against him falls under Article 120 and not under Article 109, Limitation Act. (Article 109 prescribes a period of 3 years for a suit to recover the profits of immove-able property belonging to the plaintiff which have been wrongfully received by the defendant). For this position he has strongly relied on the cases in -- 'Siddalingana Gowd v. Bhimana Gowd', AIR 1935 Mad. 731 (P) and -- 'Yerukola v. Yerukola', AIR 1922 Mad. 150 (FB) (Q).

and those circumstances were considered as justifying the application of Article 109, Limitation Act. A suit by one co-sharer against another who is in exclusive possession of the joint property for compensation for use and occupation, or for his share of the rents and produce of the joint family property would, it was observed in that case, fall within Article 120. -- 'AIR 1922 Mad 150 (FB) (Q) -- 'Po Nyun Maung V. Ma- Saw Tin, A. I. R. 1931 Rang. 150 (Z1) and -- 'AIR 1936 Mad. 654 (R) were referred to and relied on for holding that a suit by one co-sharer against another for the share of the rents collected fay the latter is within Article 120 and Article 109 could not apply because the defendant could not be said to have received the rents wrongfully so as to attract its operation.

25. In the present case there is a further circumstance in favour of the plaintiffs. By an order in Mis. Case No. 124/41-42 which was confirmed in C. R. P. No. 238/42-33 by the High Court it was directed that plaintiff 8 who was and is acting for plaintiffs 1 to 7 should be put in possession jointly with defendant 1 and the father of defendants 2 and 3. In the face of that order it is difficult for the appellants to contend that they must be deemed to have been in such wrongful and exclusive possession of the properties as would bring their case under Col. (1) of Article 109, Limitation Act. We must, therefore, hold that the plaintiffs are entitled to four years mesne profits and not only for 3 years as held by the Court below.