JUDGMENT Banerjee and Geint, JJ. - In this appeal, which arises out of a suit for mesne profits brought by the Plaintiffs-Respondents, three questions have been raised by the learned vakil for the Defendants-Appellants : first, whether the Court of Appeal below was right in rejecting the Defendants' application for measurement of the land in respect of which mesne profits are claimed; second whether the Court of Appeal below is right in assessing mesne profits according to the value of the crops claimed; and third, whether the Court of Appeal below is right in allowing the Plaintiffs full costs, instead of costs in proportion to the amount decreed. 2. Upon the first point we are of opinion that as both the parties went into evidence and the Plaintiff's evidence was believed by the first Court and the decree of the first Court is affirmed by the second Court, it cannot be said that the refusal of the first Court to allow the Defendants' application for a local investigation amounted to an error of law, such as would justify our interfering in second appeal. We may add that the Plaintiff, when examined as a witness, said that he had himself measured the land and that the area is what was stated in the plaint. 3. Upon the second point, the contention of the learned vakil for the Appellant is this, that the lands have always been let out to tenants and as the Plaintiffs do not say they would have cultivated the lands themselves, the mesne profits ought to have been assessed according to the rent at which the lands might have been let out and not upon the value of the crops raised; and in support of this contention he refers to that class of cases in which it has been held that where a zemindar is dispossessed of his zamindari and the party wrongfully in possession cultivates the lands and raises crops, mesne profits should be ascertained, not according to the value of the crops raised by the wrong-doer, but upon the basis of the rent which the rightful owner had been realizing from the tenants, before dispossession. 4. 4. We are of opinion that the present case is altogether distinguishable from the class of cases referred to above, because here the Plaintiff or the landlord bought the tenure or holding of his tenant in which the present Defendants had a sub-tenancy. The Plaintiffs were therefore entitled, not only to the landlord's right in the land which they had before, but also to the tenant's right which they bought and to the right to annul the sub-tenancy of the Defendants, which they had done, by notice u/s 167 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. After that notice they became entitled to actual possession; and if, nevertheless, such possession was withheld from them by the Defendant until they were evicted by a decree obtained in a regular suit, they cannot complain if mesne profits are assessed upon the value of the crops raised by them, subsequently to their being served with notice u/s 167. The position of the Plaintiff here was not merely that of a landlord, but was that of landlord and tenant combined. Mesne profits must, therefore, in our opinion, be assessed on the value of the crops raised. 5. The first two contentions of the Appellants fail. 6. In our opinion the third contention is entitled to succeed, as there is no reason given by the Lower Appellate Court why the costs should not be assessed in proportion. With this modification, the decree of the Lower Appellate Court is affirmed and this appeal dismissed with costs.