JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J.:— The only question in this appeal is whether the Courts below were right in dismissing the claim of the plaintiff-appellant for mesne profits. It appears that the plaintiff and the first respondent are co-sharers in a certain village, and that under an arbitration award made on the 12th of August, 1901. the extent of the share of each of them was declared. The first respondent, Musammat Hajira, granted a lease to the second defendand, Abdul Hamid, when the matter was pending before the arbitrator. The present suit was brought by the plaintiff to have the lease cancelled and for joint possession. He also claimed a sum Rs. 250. as mesne profits from the defendants. The Court of first instance decreed cancellation of the lease and awarded joint possession to the plaintiff. It dismissed the claim for mesne profits. That decree has been affirmed by the lower appellate Court. It is contended in this appeal that the lower Courts ought to have made a decree for mesne profits against all the defendants, or at least against Musammat Hajira. As regards the lessee and the persons holding through, or under him, as they hold under a lease from one of the co-sharers, their possession cannot he deemed to be that of trespassers, and therefore a decree for mesne profits cannot he passed against them. This was held in Bhola Nath v. Buskin, [1894] A.W.N., 127. As regards Musammat Hajira a decree for mesne profits could not be granted, she being a co-sharer, but the plaintiff can claim profits from her in the revenue Court in respect of his share in the village, and in that claim he may inculde profits in respect of the land now in question. It is contended that under section 197 of the Tenancy Act No. II 1901, the learned Judge ought to have treated this suit as a suit for profits. But this could not be done as this was not a suit for profits of the plaintiff's share in the mahal, but a suit for mesne profits. A claim for mesne profits is different in its essential characteristics from one for profits under the Tenancy Act. Therefore this is not a matter which the learned Judge could have determined in the exercise of his powers under section 197. The appeal is without force. It is accordingly dismissed with costs to Mr. A claim for mesne profits is different in its essential characteristics from one for profits under the Tenancy Act. Therefore this is not a matter which the learned Judge could have determined in the exercise of his powers under section 197. The appeal is without force. It is accordingly dismissed with costs to Mr. Abdul Majid's clients who alone have appeared. Costs in this Court will include fees on the higher scale.