IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 35 OF 2008 SHRI. MANUEL FRANCISCO XAVIER COLACO ... Appellant Versus SHRI. ANTONIO COLACO AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. Sudin M. S. Usagaonkar,Adv.for the appellant. Mr. A.F. Diniz, Adv. for the respondents. Coram:- C. L. PANGARKAR, J. Date:- 20th January, 2009 P.C. 1.Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents. 2.This second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff, who was unsuccessful in both the courts below. 3.The plaintiff is said to be an administrator. The defendant is the plaintiff's brother. The plaintiff being an administrator, instituted a suit against his brother i.e. defendant for possession of the property, which was left behind by their father. It was contended by the plaintiff that being an administrator, he was entitled to be in possession of the property but was wrongly dispossessed by the defendant. The plaintiff, therefore, instituted a suit purporting to be a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Suit was decreed. Since the said suit has been decreed, the plaintiff has instituted the second suit for recovery of the mesne profit on the ground that the defendant was in wrongful possession of the property and he was liable to pay the mesne profit which could have accrued. 4.The courts below found that the defendant was one of the co-owners and therefore, there was no question of his paying any mesne profit to the plaintiff, who claims to be an administrator. 5.The learned counsel for the appellant submits before me that the defendant had wrongly dispossessed the plaintiff and therefore, the plaitniff had instituted the suit, and the fact that court had decreed such suit itself suggests that the possession of the defendant was wrongful. He submits that whenever the party is put in possession of the property, that party is entitled to mesne profit after decree of possession is passed in its favour. 6.Learned counsel for the defendant/respondent, on the other hand, submits that the defendant is not liable to pay any mesne profit being one of the co-owners of the property. 7.After having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent, I find that the plaintiff was merely an administrator. He is not an exclusive owner of the property. Admittedly, it cannot at this stage be disputed that the defendant has right in the suit property and the plaintiff and defendant could be said to be the joint owners of the suit property. This proposition cannot at all be disputed. What right plaintiff has as administor is to administer the suit property to the exclusion of the other heirs of the deceased. Right to administer the property does not mean the right to possess property exclusively. It only envisages the right to administer the property and not to be exclusive owner of the property. The courts below have rightly found that the plaintiff is not the exclusive owner of the property. They have rightly dismissed the suit. I find that there is no substantial question of law involved in the appeal. It is dismissed in limine. C. L. PANGARKAR, J. PZC