Judgment :- 1. The appellant was the auction-purchaser of the property concerned at the sale held in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 130 of 1934 of the court of the District Munsiff of Payyoli. In O.S. No. 849 of 1943 the District Munsiff of Nadapuram set aside the decree and sale in O.S. No. 130 of 1934. The decree holder and the auction-purchaser in O.S. No. 130 of 1934 were parties to the decree in O.S. No. 849 of 1943. 2. Both of them appealed against that decree to the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry. The appeal of the decree holder was dismissed and the appeal of the auction-purchaser was allowed. By the judgment in the Second Appeals Nos. 1441 and 2551 of 1947, the High Court of Madras restored the judgment of the trial court. 3. After the decision by the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry and before the decision in the Second Appeals by the High Court of Madras the auction-purchaser obtained symbolical delivery of the properties on 19-10-1946. After the decision in the Second Appeals the plaintiff in O.S. No. 849 of 1943 and another member of his tarwad on whom the property had devolved as a result of the partition in their tarwad sought restitution with mesne profits. 4. The lower court ordered redelivery of the property and directed payment of mesne profits as claimed in the petition. It is common ground that redelivery has been effected and that the only question that arises for consideration is as regards the mesne profits to be paid. 5. The first submission before us is that as a result of the opposition of the plaintiff in O. S. No. 849 of 1943 the appellant was able to get possession of the property only on 19-10-1946 though the sale was on 1942 and its confirmation on 11-2-1943 and that he should not be made liable for mesne profits for any period prior to 19-10-1946. We are satisfied that this contention is well-founded and that no mesne profits should be awarded for any period anterior to 19-10-1946. This is not a case where mesne profits are awarded on the ground that profits were actually received but only on the ground that the appellant with ordinary diligence could have received them from the tenants of the property. 6. This is not a case where mesne profits are awarded on the ground that profits were actually received but only on the ground that the appellant with ordinary diligence could have received them from the tenants of the property. 6. The second contention urged before us is that from the amount fixed as payable by way of mesne profits 10 per cent thereof should be deducted as collection charges and only the balance should be directed to be paid. We consider this contention also as sustainable. In A.1. R.1935 P. C. 49 Sir John Wallis dealt with a similar claim as follows: "The next objection is that both the lower Courts refused to make any allowance for the expenses of collection on the ground that the defendant failed to adduce any evidence as to the amount of such expenses. Profit always means the difference between the amount realized and the expenses incurred in realizing it: and this rule has been expressly applied by this Board as regards mesne profits in 8 Cal. 332. In India 10 per cent is the customary allowance for mesne profits, and it was therefore unnecessary for the defendant to adduce any evidence on this subject. In 27 Cal. 951,10 per cent was substituted by this Board under the head for the subject of evidence. The decree must therefore be varied by allowing the defendant a reduction of 10 per cent on the collections." 7. The C.M.S.A. is allowed with costs in the manner and to the extent indicated above. Allowed.