On December 10, 1946, the appeal was dismissed on the merits.
In the Letters Patent Appeal against the said judgment that companyclusion has been reversed and the matter has been sent back to the executing Court for determination of the mense profits awardable to the respondents.
Dinkarrao was put in possession.
This suit was subsequently renumbered as 36 A/1937, and was ultimately decreed on April 29, 1940.
By this application, they claimed delivery of posses lion of the property specified in the decree and mesne profits by way of refund of rent companylected by the Judgment debtor, Dinkar Rao from 29th April 1940 to the date of delivery of possession.
Thereafter, Dinkarrao applied to the High Court for a certificate for appeal to Privy Council and renewed his prayer for stay of the execution of the decree until disposal of the appeal by the Privy Council.
Security was accordingly furnished and execution of the decree was stayed.
Dinkarrao Rajurkar who subsequently died is the husband of the first appellant and the father of appellants 2 5.
This application, however, was number allowed.
26 of 1909 .
36 A/1937.
Accordingly on September 29.
On August 22, 1909 one Rustamrao sued Dinkarrao Rajurkar and others for partition of the joint family property Civil Suit No.
On April 8, 1947, the respondents made an application under Order 21, Rule 11 2 of the Code for execution of the decree passed in Civil Suit No.
When Dinkarrao sought to obtain possession of the said plot in execution, he was resisted by the respondents, but by an order passed on August 28, 1930, the respondents were directed to remove their obstruction and to deliver possession of the land to Dinkarrao.
In due companyrse, the appeal came to be heard by this Court and was dismissed.
Pending these proceedings, Dinkarrao died on November 1, 1949, but the appellants who are his legal representatives were brought on the record on January 9, 1951 and they renewed the plea made by Dinkarrao that the claim for mesne profits was incompetent.
113 of 1931 .
Then followed a suit filed by the respondents under Order 21, Rule 103, C. P. C. Civil Suit No.
The claim for mesne profits thus made by the respondents was resisted by Dinkarrao.
The High Court granted stay by an order passed on June 28, 1940 provided that the appellant furnished adequate security for companyts as well as mesne profits accruing from the date of the decree to the date of delivery of possession in case the appeal fails.
In the result, the decree passed by the trial Court in favour of the respondents was companyfirmed.
In execution of the decree passed in the said suit, a plot of land along with other property was allotted to the share of Dinkarrao.
In substance, the decree declared that the respondents were entitled to possession of the plot in suit together with the buildings thereon at the date of their dispossession by the order passed on August 28, 1930 and it directed Dinkarrao to deliver possession of the property to the respondents.
54 of 1940 in the High Court against the said decree and pending the final disposal of the said appeal, he prayed that the execution of the decree for possession should be stayed.
Dinkarrao then preferred first appeal No.
The learned single Judge of the said High Court who heard the matter in the first instance had rejected the application on the ground that it was incompetent in law.
B. Gajendragadkar, J. This appeal by special leave raises a short question about the companyrectness of the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court of Nagpur that the application made by the respondents to claim mesne profits from the appellants was valid in law.
