Ram Dayal vs Madan Mohan Lal on 29 May, 1899
It was held to be so even by the Madras High Court in Ramabhadra v. Jagannatha (1890) I.L.R. 14 Mad., 328, which the learned Chief Justice has criticized. As that section only vests the Court with a discretion and there was no obligation on the Court to make a decree for mesne profits for the period subsequent to the date of the suit for possession, the omission to grant such mesne profits cannot by virtue of Explanation III to Section 13 preclude a subsequent suit for mesne profits.