Judgment Raj Kishore Prasad, J. 1. The appellants, who are plaintiffs, are aggrieved by a decree for mesne profits. 2. The plaintiffs brought a suit for redemption on the 6th July, 1940. In pursuance of the decree for redemption passed in the suit, they got possession on the 25th May, 1944. Thereafter, they filed an application for ascertainment of mesne profits from 1348 to 1351 Ps. The first Court allowed a sum of Rs. 2,839/13/8 as against their claim for Rs. 4,114/-. This amount was reduced, on appeal by the respondents, by the Court of appeal below, to Rs. 435/8/-. The plaintiffs have come up in second appeal against this modified decree. 3. Mr. Gouri Shankar Prasad, appearing for the plaintiffs appellants, has taken three points before me : (1) that cost of cultivation should not have been allowed in view of Section 76(1) of the Transfer of Property Act : (2) wheat should not have been disallowed; (3) the rate of paddy produce allowed by the Court of appeal below is very low, and (4) in any event, the cost of cultivation could not be allowed in respect of Mahua and bamboo clumps, and in this respect the decree prepared by the Court of appeal below was wrong. 4. As regards the first contention that cost of cultivation should not have been allowed, I find that the Court of appeal below allowed the cost of cultivation to the extent of one-third of the produce for grain alone, because the learned Subordinate Judge took the view that under the law the respondents were entitled to the same. Mr. R. S. Chatterji, appearing for the respondents, has contended that mesne profits include cost of cultivation, and as such the decree of the Court of appeal below allowing deduction on account of the cost of cultivation was perfectly correct. He referred to the case of Kiran Chandra Roy V/s. Erfan Karikar, AIR 1934, Cal, 503 (A) in support of his contention. In this case, it was held that mesne profits, as defined in Sec.2(12) of the Code of Civil Procedure would show that profits referred to in Sec.2 (12) is the balance left after deducting the cost of cultivation, rent paid and the cost of maintenance. In this case, it was held that mesne profits, as defined in Sec.2(12) of the Code of Civil Procedure would show that profits referred to in Sec.2 (12) is the balance left after deducting the cost of cultivation, rent paid and the cost of maintenance. It was further held that the basis of calculation of mesne profits is not the rate of rent, which would be fair and equitable for the lands in question, but the profits which the tenants have actually received, or might with ordinary diligence have received, from their wrongful possession. He has further relied on the case of Baldeo Rai V/s. Rak Ekbal Singh 4 Pat LJ 301 : (AIR 1919 Pat 392 (1) ) (B), in which a Division Bench of this Court held that where mesne profits are claimed from a trespasser the cost of cultivation and reaping should be allowed. This case was decided in 1918 before the amendment made in Clause (i) of Section 76 of the Transfer of Property Act in 1929. The amendment made by the Amending Act 20 of 1939. in Clause (i) of Section 76 is as follows :- - "..and shall not be entitled to deduct any amount therefrom on account of any expenses incurred after such date or time in connection with the mortgaged property." Clause (i) specifically deals with the case of a mortgagee who does not give up possession even, when the mortgagor tenders, or deposits, the amount for the time being due on the mortgage. It provides that in such a case the mortgagee must, notwithstanding the provisions in the other clauses of this section, account for his receipts from the mortgaged property from the date of the tender or from the earliest time when he could take such amount out of Court, as the case may be. After this the amended words quoted above have been added. The word receipts used in Clause (i) has been used in the same sense in which this word has been used in Clause (h) of Section 76 of the Transfer of Property Act. From the second part of Clause (i) of Section 76, jt is quite clear that after tender the mortgagee is neither entitled to interest nor to deductions for expenses of management of. the property, collection of rents and profits, public charges or repairs. From the second part of Clause (i) of Section 76, jt is quite clear that after tender the mortgagee is neither entitled to interest nor to deductions for expenses of management of. the property, collection of rents and profits, public charges or repairs. The word expenses occurring in Clause (i) of Section 76 would include the cost of cultivation also. The case reported in 4 Pat LJ 301 : (AIR 1919 Pat 392 (1)) (B), would therefore, be no authority for the present case, as it was decided before the amendment of 1929. In the case of Puliyadi Rajagopala Aiyar V/s. Karuppiah, AIR 1946 Mad 464 (C) Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J. held that the decision of the Madras High Court in the earlier case of Subbarao V/s. Balusu-buchi, ILR 47 Mad 7 : (AIR 1923 Mad 533) (D) was expressly superseded by the amendment in 1929 as a result of which the word gross was omitted before the word receipts and the following words were added at the end of the sub-clause, that is, "and shall not be entitled to deduct any amount therefrom on account of any expenses in-curred after such date or time in connection with the mortgaged property." In that case, his Lordship was considering whether the word expenses includes public charges also. His Lordship said :- - "There is no warrant for limiting the word expenses to what has to be spent in connection with the management and in respect of the collection of rents and profits. Clause (h) of the section refers to the public charges also as expenses. The object of making the provision so stringent against the mortgagee is obviously to see that he does not delay the delivery of possession by the adoption of some device or another." In my opinion, therefore, the word expenses Includes cost of cultivation, and as such, in view of the amended provision of Clause (i) of Section 76 of the Transfer of Property Act, the mortgagee is not entitled to deduct any amount on account of the cost of cultivation also in connection with the mortgaged property, from the date of the tender or the deposit. 5. 5. The general principle that in estimating the mesne profits, which the owner of land is entitled to recover from a trespasser, the costs of collecting rents, which are ordinarily incurred by the owner, should be allowed to the trespasser only where such trespasser entered on the land in the exercise of a bona fide claim of right; but when the trespasser is altogether tortious and malicious, in other words, when the trespasser has entered or continued on the property without any bona fide belief that he is entitled to do so, where, in defiance of the rights of another, he has thrust himself into an estate, although he may still claim all necessary payments, such as Government revenue or ground rent, it is not Imperative on the Court in estimating damages to allow the wrong-doer even such charges as would ordinarily but voluntarily be incurred by an owner in possession, as laid down in the case of Dungar Mal V/s. Jai Ram, ILR 24 All 376 (E), is still there. But, in my opinion, as far as the mortgagee is concerned, he is to be governed by Clause (i) of Section 76 of the Transfer of property Act. In this view of the matter I would disallow the cost of cultivation. 6. (After dealing with other contentions which are not material for reporting, the judgment concludes as under :- -) In the result, the appeal partly succeeds, and is allowed to the extent indicated above. The appellants will be entitled to their costs of this Court in proportion to their success.