1. This is an application by respondents 1 to 5 in S. A. 2014 of 1927 for directing the appellant, defendant 1, to deliver to the petitioners the produce and straw taken by him during the harvest in October 1927 from the items allotted and delivered to the petitioners in the case and. to pass such orders as the Court may deem fit. The appellant in the second appeal, who is the respondent herein, applied for stay of further proceedings in O.S. 65 of 1922 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tinnevelly, and got an interim stay order on 3rd October 1927. The allegation of the petitioners herein is that, taking advantage of that interim stay order, he went and harvested the crops on the nanja lands set out in detail in the affidavit of Devaraja Ayyar by intimidating the petitioners and by representing that he had a stay order with reference to the items in question. These items were delivered to the petitioners so far back as 10th January 1927, in execution of a decree for partition. The preliminary decree was passed on 18th December 1925 and the final decree on 31st March 1926, and the Subordinate Judge directed that delivery of the item should be made by 18th January 1927. The report of the amin, which is filed herein, shows that delivery was effected on 10th January 1927 by marking the plots delivered by driving pegs and stones in the ground and by making clear that what was delivered was according to the final decree in the suit. An application was made by the respondent herein to the District Court for stay of delivery, and that was rejected on 27th January 1927. There was some dispute about the harvesting of crops on the land in January. The petitioners claimed to have taken delivery of the crops as well and the respondent contended that only the lands were delivered and not the crops. There were some criminal proceedings and the Magistrate held that the delivery warrant did not support the contention of the petitioners that the crops were delivered to them and he allowed the respondent's tenants to harvest the crops. There seems to have been some trouble at the time of raising the kar harvest in May or June 1927. The petitioners having got possession, they let the land to their tenants and through their tenants raised the kar crop. The respondent applied for stay of proceedings when, as a matter of fact, possession had been delivered of the Tenkasi lands. The statement of the respondent herein in para. 12 of his affidavit:
In pursuance of the decree of the lower Court the respondents herein are taking out execution proceedings and putting me to unnecessary trouble, hardship and loss and trying to oust me from my dwelling-house and lands mainly at the instigation of a widow, etc.,
cannot be true so far as the Tenkasi lands are concerned. All that the petitioners did was to ask for symbolic delivery of the lands in Elanji which were subject to a usufructuary mortgage. Taking advantage of this the respondent made this disingenuous statement and thereby got an interim stay order from this Court, and on the strength of that order' intimidated the petitioners and harvested crops which were according to them raised by their tenants.
2. Mr. Patanjali Sastri, who appears for the respondent, contends that there was a dispute about possession, that he and his tenants harvested the crops and that he has got the landlord's share of the crops. I fail to see how the respondent could be entitled to the landlord's share of the crops raised on lands which were admittedly given possession of to the petitioners. What is urged by Mr. Patanjali Sastri is that no ridges were put up and that he was not aware of the delivery and that, therefore, his client was justified in ignoring the delivery and claiming to be in possession of the items delivered. I am at a loss to understand this argument. The plots were marked by pegs being driven into the ground and by planting stones. That being so no amount of ingenuity will justify the action of the respondent in claiming to be in possession of the land which was delivered to the petitioners and in harvesting the crops on it. The question is what order should this Court pass. I am satisfied that the respondent, by misleading the Court and by getting an order on the strength of misrepresentation, went to his place and flourished the order in the face of the petitioners and harvested the crops which legitimately belonged to the petitioners. I think that this Court has got power under Section 151, Civil P.C., when its process has been abused by a party, to direct that party to make good the loss which it has caused by such abuse or to restore to the other side the benefit which it has obtained by getting an order by misleading the Court. I think that the proper order in this case would be to make the respondent pay into the Court the value of the landlord's share which he got from the tenants. As this amount is not agreed to between the parties, I direct the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly to ascertain within two months the amount of the paddy that was actually harvested, and determine the amount of the landlord's share and its market value at the harvest. The amount so determined will be paid by the respondent into Court within one week of the determination, to await the orders of this Court. On failure to deposit the amount within that time the second appeal will be posted for dismissal and the Court will consider what further steps should be taken against the respondent to repair the loss which he has caused to the other side and for obtaining an order from this Court by means of a false affidavit. Both sides will be entitled to adduce evidence. The Subordinate Judge will report whether the amount has been deposited into Court after ascertainment as above.