( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 123 OF 2008 Parwatibai Tryambakrao Kokil and others. APPELLANTS VERSUS Jyoti Anil Kokil and another RESPONDENT ..... Mr. Uday Malte, advocate for the appellants. Mr. A.S. Deshmukh, advocate holding for Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 3rd November, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. Both the Courts have held that the respondents/ plaintiffs are entitled to recover the mesne profits after the partition decree was rendered. The unsuccessful defendants challenged the grant of the mesne profits which have been determined at rate of Rs. 1000/- p.m. The case of the present appellants was that there are only two (2) rooms in the house property, but ( 2 ) the Courts below have found that there are four (4) rooms and, therefore, as per the Commissioner’s report, the probable rent which could be fetched by the 2/3rd share of the respondents/plaintiffs has been considered. 3. The chief bone of contention raised by the appellants/defendants is that the co-sharers cannot be regarded as trespassers and, therefore, decree for mesne profits is not legal and proper. It is also contended that the probable rent is not properly determined. 4. Reliance is placed on the judgement in “Annasaheb Rajaram Nagane and another v. Rajaram Maruti Nagane and others” (AIR 2001 BOMBAY 303), “Shambhu Dayal Khetan and others v. Motilal Murarka and others” (AIR 1980 PATNA 106) and “P. Satyanarayana v. P. Venkatrao and others” ( AIR 1989 Andhra Pradesh 273). It is true that the co-sharer cannot be regarded as trespasser and would not be required to pay mesne profits for period preceding the decree. Still, however, after passing of the partition decree, if the co-sharer does not comply with the directions and continue to remain in possession, then his possession becomes unauthorized. ( 3 ) In this view of the matter, the impugned judgements are legal and proper because the mesne profits have been awarded post decree and not past decree. No substantial question of law is involved in the second appeal. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 5. In view of dismissal of the second appeal, civil application No. 2037/2008 does not survive and hence, stands dismissed accordingly. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/sa123-08