R. S. A. No. 1674 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 1674 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : April 06, 2011 Gian Chand and others .... Appellants Vs. Ved Parkash and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate for the appellants. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 4633-C of 2011 : Allowed as prayed for. C. M. No. 4634-C of 2011 : This is application for impleading legal representatives of defendant no.6 Ram Piari (since deceased). It is alleged that defendant no.6 Ram Piari has since died leaving behind a son and a daughter, as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the application, as her only legal heirs. The application is accompanied by affidavit. Accordingly, the application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions and persons mentioned in paragraph 2 of the application are ordered to be brought on record as legal representatives of R. S. A. No. 1674 of 2011 (O&M) 2 defendant no.6 Ram Piari (since deceased) for the purpose of this appeal. Main Appeal : Defendants no.2 to 9 including legal representatives of defendant no.6 have filed the instant second appeal. Respondents/plaintiffs filed suit against defendants for recovery of mesne profits of 53 kanals 16 marlas land in suit, from which defendants have been ordered to be ejected by the Revenue Court and upheld up to Hon'ble Supreme Court. Plaintiffs claimed mesne profits for three years preceding the filing of the suit i.e. since kharif 2001 crop till rabi 2004 crop. Defendant no.1 died during the pendency of the suit and defendants no.2 to 9, who were already party, were her legal representatives. Defendants no.2 to 6 contested the suit, whereas defendants no.7 and 8 were proceeded ex-parte. It was pleaded that plaintiffs are entitled to 1/4th share of the batai and not to mesne profits. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal, vide judgment and decree dated 11.04.2009, decreed the plaintiffs' suit for recovery of Rs.40,247/- as mesne profits. In first appeal preferred by the plaintiffs, learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal, vide judgment and decree dated 28.01.2011, modified the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the plaintiffs' suit for recovery of Rs.87,414/- with pendente lite interest @ 9% per annum and future interest @ 6% per annum. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants have preferred the instant second appeal. R. S. A. No. 1674 of 2011 (O&M) 3 I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. R. S. A. No.3889 of 2008 titled Ved Parkash and others vs. Gian Chand and others arising out of a similar suit between same parties pertaining to recovery of mesne profits of the same suit land for earlier period has been decided by this Court vide order dated 15.03.2010 (Annexure A-3). Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the trial court rightly decreed the plaintiffs' suit for recovery of Rs.40,247/- being 1/4th of the amount of produce as per produce statement Ex.P-1 produced by the plaintiffs themselves. The contention, although prima facie very attractive, is in fact devoid of merit. Produce statement Ex.P-1, as shown by counsel for the appellants, reveals that the said statement is not pertaining to the entire suit land measuring 53 kanals 16 marlas. It appears that the entire suit land was not cultivated during the crops and the produce statement has been prepared for part of the suit land, which was under cultivation. However, vide order Annexure A-3, it has been held by this Court that plaintiffs are entitled to mesne profits for the entire suit land including the land, which remained uncultivated. Perusal of produce statement Ex.P-1 reveals that out of the suit land measuring 53 kanals 16 marlas in all, land measuring 32 kanals 08 marlas was cultivated in kharif 2001, 38 kanals 18 marlas in rabi 2002, 24 kanals only in kharif 2002, 33 kanals 19 marlas in rabi 2003, 35 kanals 12 marlas in kharif 2003 and 36 kanals 04 marlas in R. S. A. No. 1674 of 2011 (O&M) 4 rabi 2004. However, the plaintiffs are entitled to mesne profits for the entire suit land irrespective of whether the entire suit land was cultivated or only part of it was cultivated. Lower appellate court has taken into consideration evidence led by the plaintiffs regarding lease money fetched by the Panchayat land. Normally, Panchayat land fetches lesser lease money. However, the lower appellate court, after calculating the lease money on the basis of lease money fetched by the Panchayat land, further granted deduction of 1/3rd amount thereof and decreed the plaintiffs' suit for only 2/3rd of the lease money so calculated. The plaintiffs are entitled to mesne profits equal to the lease money, which the suit land could have fetched. The lower appellate court has rightly decreed the suit on that basis. However, in fact, the lower appellate court has granted 1/3rd deduction out of the lease money, which is favourable for the defendants and detrimental to the plaintiffs. Consequently, the amount for which the suit has been decreed by the lower appellate court, does not warrant any further reduction. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Finding recorded by the lower appellate court is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. R. S. A. No. 1674 of 2011 (O&M) 5 April 06, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE