JUDGMENT Caspersz, J. - This appeal arises out of an application by the decree-holder Respondent for the judicial ascertainment of mesne profits of certain lands for the period extending from 29th March 1893 up to 27th or 28th December 1899 being the date of delivery of possession. The decree-holder obtained a decree for 5 annas 5 gundas Bhare of a certain revenue-paying taluk. It was not determined what the boundaries of the taluk were, but it was held that a purchaser in the position of the Plaintiff was not bound to recognise any previous partition not made by the Collector. The Plaintiff, therefore, obtained a decree for an undivided share, together with mesne profits, and the Defendant's alleged sikmi taluk was set aside. The decree of the first Court was affirmed on appeal by the High Court on the 20th June 1899. Proceedings in execution were taken in due course, and on the 21st April 1903, a Division Bench of this Court (Rampini and Handley, JJ.) interpreted the decree so as to secure to the decree holder possession of certain specific plots of land as appurtenant to the share of 5 annas 5 gundas decreed to him. We cannot, in any way, discuss or vary the interpretation so arrived at. In the assessment of mesne profits, two different principles must be adopted, one applicable to the case of the rent-paying lands, or jote lands, and the other applicable to the case of the specific plots which we have mentioned and which we may call the khamar lands. A Civil Court Amin was deputed to make the necessary local enquiries. His report is before us, and we have, also, referred to the ekwal, or abstract, prepared by him. The Civil Court Amin found that the total amount of mesne profits, including the rents for the jote lands and the price of the produce of the khamar lands came up to Rs. 16,304-8 as. 0 pice 131/2 krants. From this sum he deducted on account of expenditure, that is to say, collection charges at 10 per cent. and the costs of cultivation Rs. 5,358-6-5-131/2, the resultant amount of mesne profits being Rs. 10,946-1-7. These conclusions have been accepted by the learned Subordinate Judge in his order from which the present appeal has been preferred. But the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge brings up the amount of mesne profits to Rs. and the costs of cultivation Rs. 5,358-6-5-131/2, the resultant amount of mesne profits being Rs. 10,946-1-7. These conclusions have been accepted by the learned Subordinate Judge in his order from which the present appeal has been preferred. But the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge brings up the amount of mesne profits to Rs. 22,335 7-7-11 which figure has been calculated so as to include interest at 12 per cent on the various sums accruing for the successive years from 29th March 1893 to 7th August 1905, the latter date being the day preceding the day on which the decree was made. 2. The judgment-debtors have appealed against the decree awarding mesne profits for the amount we have mentioned, and the contention before us are four in number; first, as to the true principle of assessment to be adopted; secondly, as to the apportionment of the total sum between the several judgment-debtors; thirdly, as to the deductions that should be made from the value of the produce of the khamar lands on account of the risk and supervision of the cultivation carried on by persons in the position of the decree-holder; and, fourthly, as to the rate of interest at 12 per cent. allowed by the learned Subordinate Judge. 3. With regard to the first contention, we observe that the only difficulty that arises is in respect of the khamar lands. The contention, as we understand it, is that the decree-holder, not being himself a cultivator, should not be allowed mesne profits calculated on the price of the actual produce. Our attention has been called to the cases of Surja Pershad Narain v. Reid 6 C. W. N. 409 (1902) and Laljee Shahay v. Walker 6 C. W. N. 732 (1902), and it has been further urged on the authority of the case of Raghu Nandan Jha v. Jalpa Pattap 8 C. W. N. 748 (1897) that a decree-holder in the position of the present Respondent cannot equitably obtain more than a fair and reasonable rent for the lands, if those lands had been let out to tenants during the period of unlawful occupation by the judgment-debtors. The true principle, as it seems to us, deducible from the authorities is that, on the facts of the present litigation, the decree-holder must be regarded as the potential, and therefore the actual cultivator of the specific plots which were cultivated by the judgment-debtors from whom he succeeded in obtaining possession. The occupation of khamar lands in the direct cultivation of the maliks very nearly approximates to the occupation of raiyati lands held by ordinary cultivators. In some instances the proprietor cultivates his khamar land by means of his own ploughs, utilizing the labour of his servants; in other cases, he may not take so much personal interest in the cultivation of such lands, and may prefer to employ hired labour and to exercise the necessary supervision over the cultivation by means of paid agents or factors. It does not, however, make any difference as to the principle upon which a proprietor is equitably entitled to receive mesne profits for khamar lands which have been in the wrongful cultivation of others and from which they did not get anything in the shape of rent. The judgment-debtors withheld their papers, and the utmost that they can urge on the facts of the present case, is that the learned Subordinate Judge ought to have deducted some percentage, in addition to the ordinary costs of cultivation which have been allowed by the Civil Court Amin. That percentage, we think, may fairly be calculated, in the case of khamar lands, at half the usual rate on account of collection charges allowed in the case of rent-paying or jote lands. The terra 'collection charge,' in the latter case, would include a larger establishment, and it would be much more elastic than the ordinary cost of supervising what may be called home-cultivation. We think that 5 per cent. on the value of the actual produce of the khamar lands may be regarded as a sufficient allowance to meet the costs of supervision and any other incidental charges for which a proprietor, who is not an ordinary cultivator of his khamar lands, may be liable, and to that extent the judgment-debtors may benefit in the calculation of the mesne-profits which they should be called upon to pay. These observations dispose of the first and third contentions on behalf of the judgment-debtors. 4. These observations dispose of the first and third contentions on behalf of the judgment-debtors. 4. There is no force in the second contention, that is, as regards the apportionment which the judgment-debtors urge should be made as between themselves. The case cannot be sent back to the lower Court at this stage for an enquiry to be held into the different degrees of interest they possessed in the different plots held by them, in virtue of their alleged sikimi right, before possession was delivered to the decree holder. The decree was passed against all the judgment-debtors jointly; their sikimi was not set aside; and we entertain no doubt that the possession of a 5 annas 5 gundas share in the taluk carries with it a(sic) right to obtain mesne profits not merely from the individual sikimidars, but from the entire body of the judgment-debtors who were in possession of that share. The sikimi taluk set up by the judgment-debtors extended to that share, the specific plots--In respect of which mesne profits have been calculated on the basis of actual produce--were Integral parts of the share purchased by the decree-holder; and this view having been affirmed by this Court on appeal, the question is no longer open to discussion. The Defendants other than Defendants Nos. 2, 3, 29 and 30 are not also before us, the latter four Defendants having appealed against the Plaintiff without making the other Defendants parties to the appeal, and we cannot make any order affecting their interest in their absence. 5. The remaining contention, however, is one which ought to prevail. We may observe that no objection was taken in the Court below or before us with regard to the period limited by the terms of sec. 211 of the Code and the extended period of over six years for which mesne profits have been allowed in the present case. No doubt, a claim for mesne profits includes, and must include, interest on such mesne profits. This was pointed out by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in the case of Girish Chandra Lahiri v. Sasi Sekhareswar Roy L.R. 27 I.A. 110 (124): s.c. ILR 27 Cal. 951 (1881). Interest as forming a part of the mesne profits or damages cannot be allowed for any period subsequent to that limited by sec. This was pointed out by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in the case of Girish Chandra Lahiri v. Sasi Sekhareswar Roy L.R. 27 I.A. 110 (124): s.c. ILR 27 Cal. 951 (1881). Interest as forming a part of the mesne profits or damages cannot be allowed for any period subsequent to that limited by sec. 211 of the Code, and, in the exercise of a proper discretion, the higher rate of 12 per cent, should, in our opinion, cease after December 1899 when possession was obtained by the decree-holder. The annual rate of interest allowed by the Court on money decreed and pending realisation by process or awaiting enquiry in ascertainment conducted by order of, or before, the Court is 6 per cent, only, and the account must be taken to have been made up, as against the judgment-debtors, from the date when the decree-holder superseded them in possession of the lands decreed. In other words, the penal rate, as we may call it, of 12 per cent, should terminate when the wrong-doing of the Defendants came to an end, and thereafter, the usual Court rate should be allowed. 6. The result is that mesne profits must be ascertained on the principles which we have indicated and which were the principles adopted by the lower Court, but subject to a deduction of 5 per cent, on the produce of the khamar lands. In making the calculation of interest, the higher rate of 12 per cent, will be limited to the annual amounts accruing from the 29th March 1893 up to the end of December 1899, year by year, and the lower rate of 6 per cent, will be applied from the 1st January 1900 up to 7th August 1905, the dates being taken from the decree of the Subordinate Judge. Costs will be in proportion to the success of the judgment-debtor Appellants and the decree-holder Respondents.