1. On behalf of the petitioner Mr. Ramaswami Aiyar argues that his client was not in possession of the suit lands during the period for which profits are claimed. But realising that that circumstance by itself will not suffice to exonerate the petitioner if, on account of the order obtained by him, the plaintiff had been precluded from taking possession in execution of his decree, Mr. Ramaswami Aiyar goes further and says that in the written statement filed by his client in O.S. No. 413 of 1927 he had expressed his willingness that the plaintiff should take possession of the suit lands.
2. The obstacle in the way of the plaintiff taking possession arose on account of a stay order obtained by the present petitioner pending the appeal in the District Court Ramnad (Vide Ex. C). The stay order was no doubt made conditional on the deposit of two years mesne profits, but it certainly does not mean that if the deposit was so made the stay order would enure only for a period of two years. It is an order staying execution of the decree for all the time that the appeal may be pending.
3. The provisions of Clause (c) of Order 20, Rule 12 of the Code suggest that when a person obtains a decree for possession of immoveable property, the defendant would be answerable to the plaintiff for mesne profits either until he delivers up possession or relinquishes possession with notice to the decree-holder through the Court. It is immaterial that in the present case there was no direction in the decree itself as to future mesne profits; these provisions indicate the prima facie liability of a defendant in possession of immoveable property. That being the true legal position, I am not by any means sure whether a statement by the defendant in some other connection that he has no objection to the plaintiff taking possession will by itself suffice to get rid of the operation of a stay order or will amount to a relinquishment of possession in the sense contemplated by Order 20. Rule 12 Civil Procedure Code. But this question really does not arise in this case because on examining the terms of Ex. I, the written statement relied on for this purpose, I do not find any expression of intention there or an offer that the plaintiff may take possession at least as from the date of that written statement. It merely contains an erroneous statement of fact that no petition for stay had been filed so as to prevent the plaintiff from taking possession. Mr. Ramaswami Aiyar does not say that it is a correct statement. There was not even a suggestion made that at the end of two years the stay order ceased to operate. In these circumstances the lower Court rightly held the defendant liable, though its observation that the defendant's plea that he was not in enjoyment is false, may justify criticism in the light of the evidence of P.W.I.
4. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs.