1. (C. R. P. Nos. 2392 of 1939 and 1647 of 1940). These two civil revision petitions arise out of applications under Section 15 of Madras Act IV of 1938 with reference to the same land. The amount due on this land is due under a decree for mesne profits. It seems to us quite clear that a decree for mesne profits passed by a Civil Court in a suit for ejectment is not a decree for rent within the meaning of Section 15 of Madras Act IV of 1938; and the fact that at a date subsequent to the passing of this decree the village in which this land is situate has become an ' estate ' under the amended Madras Estates Land Act will not alter the character of the decree already passed--vide Narayana Gajapati Raju v. Narasimhulu : AIR1942Mad746 .
2. The civil revision petitions are therefore allowed with costs and the order of the learned Deputy Collector is set aside.
3. (G. R. Ps. Nos. 2393 of 1939 and 1641 of 1940).--These two revision petitions arise out of successive applications made under Section 15 of Madras Act IV of 1938, in respect of the same land. The deposit for fasli 1347 was a sum of Rs. 211-8-0. The deposit for fasli 1346 was a sum of Rs. 282 which appears to be the net rent according to the agreement. By the terms of the agreement, the rent carries interest at 12 per cent. Whether or not this agreement would be effective after the land becomes part of an ' estate ' under the amended Madras Estates Land Act, it is clear that interest under Section 61 of the Madras Estates Land Act, was payable as part of the rent which was in arrears. Admittedly no interest whatever has been deposited. The deposit made in the Revenue Court was, therefore, not a deposit of the whole of the rent for either of these two faslis.
4. The revision petitions are allowed with costs and the applications to the Revenue Divisional Officer are dismissed.
5. (C.M.A. No. 400 of 1940).--This appeal relates to the execution of the decree which is the subject-matter of civil revision petitions 2392 of 1939 and 1647 of 1940 in which judgment has just been pronounced. The decree is one for possession and mesne profits until delivery. We have already held that there is no question of treating this decree as a decree for rent to be satisfied by a deposit under Section 15 of Madras Act IV of 1938. A valid objection to the execution which does not appear to have been considered in the lower Court arises out of the fact that mesne profits have been claimed for seven years from 1932. The decree was actually passed on 21st February, 1934. Under Order 20, Rule 12 (1) (c) (iii), Civil Procedure Code, mesne profits can only be decreed for three years after the date of the decree. In the case of Ayyavaru Setti v. Kichamma C.M.A. No. 321 of 1940 we had to deal with the case of a decree which provided for mesne profits till fealisation without specifying any limit other than the date of realisation. We held that the decree must be read as one providing for mesne profits till delivery of possession subject to the statutory limit of three years. The same interpretation must be placed on the present decree and we must read it as giving the decree-holder a right to mesne profits till delivery of possession subject to the limit of three years. Execution will therefore proceed for mesne profits up to 21st February, 1937, subject to the adjustment of any payments which may have been made.
6. The respondent (decree-holder) will be entitled to recover only the proportionate court-fee paid in the lower Court together with other costs, and each party will bear his own costs in this appeal.