:1: IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APEAL NO.189 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.513 OF 2008 Shri. Jambu B. Kothale and anr. ..Appellants. Vs. Smt. Sarojini N. Kothale and anr. ..Respondents. Mr. Manoj Patil i/by A.B. Vagyani for the Appellant. Mr.M.R.Katikar for the Respondents 1 and 2. CORAM: R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 12th June,2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This appeal is filed by the original defendant Nos. 1 and 2 against the order dated 5.7.2005 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, J.D. Sangli in Decree Final Application No.15 of 2000 fixing mesne profits of Rs.5,58,000/-payable by the original defendants 1 and 2. By earlier preliminary decree, the suit of the plaintiffs for partition had been decreed in the year 1993 and the original defendants 1 and 2 were held entitled to 5/16 share in the suit property. The Subsequent enquiry in the Decree Final Application pertain to calculations of mesne profits in respect of the lands in question. On behalf of the original plaintiffs evidence was led and 7/12 extracts for relevant years were filed indicating the cash crops like sugar cane, soybean and vegetables had been taken. The present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have contended that :2: taking of such crops entries in the 7/12 extracts are not true and correct. The appellants obviously were in exclusive possession and knowledge of the amount earned by them during the years 1989 to 2000 but they produced no evidence for the income earned by them. In the circumstances, the court accepted the claim for total earning for the aforesaid period was Rs.18/- lacs by drawing adverse inference against the defendants 1 and 2 and in accordance with their 5/16 share awarded mesne profits of Rs.5,58,000/-. 2. It is sought to be contended that in the case of Lilabai R. Rajwade Vs. Madhusudan S.Rajwade reported in 2002 DGLS (Soft.) 108, the Apex Court had opined that the calculations of mesne profits on the basis of guess work are incorrect and the Apex Court remitted the matter for fresh calculations subject to partly deposit. On reading of the said judgment, it is however, clear that the remand was made by way of concession made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The concession was recorded in the judgment itself. Apart from that, the calculations made in the present case were not on the basis of guess work. Some material has been produced indicating the nature of the crops taken by the appellants. The land in question was 1-H 60-Ares. The trial court has correctly drawn adverse inference since the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 who are present appellants and who chose not to place before the :3: court actual income earned by them. In the circumstances, there is no substantial question of law in the appeal and the same is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.513 OF 2008 1. As the Second Appeal has been dismissed, Civil Application is also dismissed. (R.S. MOHITE, J.)