JUDGMENT S. Velu Pillai, J. 1. The question raised before me and arising for consideration in this appeal, falls within a narrow compass, and it is not necessary to state the whole facts. This is a suit for the redemption of a mortgage. The first question for determination is, whether certain lands represented by Survy Nos. 52/3, 52/4, 109/2D1 and 93/2B are accessions to the mortgaged property and can be redeemed, With regard to Survey No. 93/2B, it was a case of oral sale of the property and not of accession and the plaintiff's case has been accepted by both the Courts below. With regard to the other lands, it has been concurrently found, that they are accessions to the mortgaged property. The complaint of the learned counsel for the defendants appellants was, that there was no pleading on this question and that no issue had been raised. But, as observed by the Supreme Court in Nagubai Animal v. B. Shama Rao ( AIR 1956 SC 593 ) this is not material, in a case where "parties go to trial with knowledge that a particular question is in issue, though no specific issue has been framed thereon, and adduce evidence relating thereto". These observations apply with very great force to what happened in this case, and I therefore hold, that there is no ground for interference I with the concurrent findings on this question. 2. The second ground raised before me, related to the value of improvements which was reduced by the appellate Court. But the preliminary objection taken on behalf of the plaintiff- respondent, that no court fee has been paid in this Court on this claim must prevail, and I decline to go into it. 3. The third question relates to the date from which the mesne profits can be claimed by the plaintiff respondent. The Trial Court allowed mesne profits only after the value of improvements has been ascertained; but on appeal it was held, that the amount deposited by the plaintiff respondent, being in excess of the mortgage amount, and the value of the improvements as found by that Court to be payable to the defendants, the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits from the date of the preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court. The suit was also for partition of the properties and the exact amount payable as value of improvements could not be determined and was not determined by the Trial Court, as the properties were not divided. It was therefore provided in the decree passed by it "that the value of improvements standing in the share to be allotted to the plaintiff and the actual ascertainment of the value of the said improvements be made in the final decree proceedings" and till then, notwithstanding the deposit made by the plaintiff, he cannot claim mesne profits. As it happened, the value of improvements was determined by the decree passed on appeal; to this, no objection was taken. So there is no impediment in granting a decree for mesne profits to the plaintiff from the date of the decree passed on appeal. The rate of mesne profits as found by the first Court was not questioned. 4. The plaintiff has preferred a memorandum of objection claiming that mesne profits should be allowed from the date of the plaint. This cannot be granted. In the result, in modification of the decree under appeal, I allow the plaintiff respondent mesne profits at the rate found from July 29, 1955, the date of the appellate decree, till May 14, 1956, when the plaintiff obtained delivery of possession through Court. The commutation rates for mesne profits have been settled by the final decree for partition and the mesne profits will be computed on that basis. The appeal and the cross objection are both dismissed as above with costs.