JUDGMENT : - This appeal, presented by defendants 4 to 8 and 10 to 13, is from the order of February 24, 1958, of the Court below, holding that the plaintiff decree-holder respondent was entitled to get future mesne profits ascertained up to the date of delivery of possession. 2. The crucial question, which falls for determination, in the present appeal, is, whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover mesne profits down to the period of obtaining possession, although not specifically claimed in the original plaint, or, only for the precise period for which mesne profits were estimated and claimed in the schedule attached to the original plaint? Or, in other words, the question, which I am called upon to decide in this appeal, is whether the defendants 1 to 8 have rightly been held liable to the plaintiff for future mesne profits up to the date of his delivery of possession? 3. For a proper decision of the question raised, it is necessary to know the relevant facts leading up to the present appeal. The facts are these: On 16-4-1951 the plaintiff brought a suit in ejectment against the seeking therein certain declarations and also for recovery of possession and mesne profits for three years prior to the suit, that is, for 1356 to 1358 Mulki. 4. The case of the plaintiff was that he had purchased the entire tauzi No.372 in suit at a revenue sale on 26-3 1947 free from all encumbrances; that he got delivery of possession over it on 28-12-1947; that the effect of the revenue sale in favour of the plaintiff was to annul all encumbrances; that, consequently, the istmarari rights of defendants 1 to 3 in the lands in dispute as also the purchase of their rights by the ancestor of defendants 4 to 8 stood annulled; and, extinguished, and, therefore, they had no right to continue in possession of the lands in question after the delivery of possession to the plaintiff; but as they had not given up possession, their possession was wrongful, and, therefore, they were liable to be ejected and to mesne profits. 5. The main relief claimed in the suit will appear from paragraph 7 of the plaint, material portions of which, on which reliance has been placed by both sides, are to the following effect:- "7. That the suit land is valued at Rs.3,000/-. 5. The main relief claimed in the suit will appear from paragraph 7 of the plaint, material portions of which, on which reliance has been placed by both sides, are to the following effect:- "7. That the suit land is valued at Rs.3,000/-. Claim for Rs.3000/- as per accounts given below is made regarding the mesne profits. Hence the total claim is fixed at Rs.6000/-. Court-fee of Rs.629/0/- is paid on it and the plaintiff pays for the following reliefs: A. It may be held and declared by the Court that the plaintiff purchased the said tauzi in revenue sale on 25-3-47 free from all encumbrances, that after the purchases gachh istmarari nahi right entered in Khewat No.64, Khatas Nos.210 and 211 has become extinct, and hence the defendants are trespassers; that defendants Nos.9 to 13 have not acquired any right and title on the basis of the collusive Kabuliat, nor can they do so, that the possession of defendants 1 to 8 over the suit lands of Khewat No.64, Khatas Nos.210 and 211 is wrongful and hence they are liable to be dispossessed and to pay the mesne profits. If in the opinion of the Court the possession of defenders Nos.9 to 13 be proved, in that case their possession is also wrongful and illegal and they are liable to pay the mesne profits. * * * * * C. That a decree for Rs.3000/- as per accounts given below in respect of mesne profits may be passed by the Court in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants. * * * * *" 6. The suit was ultimately decreed ex parte on 30-7-53 against the defendants, including the, as they did not appear at the time when the suit was called out for hearing. The plaintiff was granted a decree for possession with mesne profits, the amount of which was directed to be determined later in a subsequent proceeding. 7. A decree was drawn up in pursuance of this judgment, and is in these terms:- "The mesne profits will carry interest at 6/-p.c.p.a. But the mesne profits will be determined in a subsequent proceedings by appointment of a pleader commissioner. The plaintiff is entitled to eject the defendants......." 8. 7. A decree was drawn up in pursuance of this judgment, and is in these terms:- "The mesne profits will carry interest at 6/-p.c.p.a. But the mesne profits will be determined in a subsequent proceedings by appointment of a pleader commissioner. The plaintiff is entitled to eject the defendants......." 8. The plaintiff, thereafter, on 27-7-56, made an application according to the direction in the judgment and decree, to the Court below for ascertainment of mesne profits from 1356 Mulki till the date of delivery of possession, which took place on 10-6-54. The said application was, resisted by defendants 4 to 8 and 10 to 12 and the heirs of 13, the, by two separate petitions of objection. Their main, and common, objection was that future mesne profits not having been claimed in the plaint nor decreed in favour of the plaintiff, his claim for future mesne profits was untenable, and, therefore, they were not liable for mesne profits for the period subsequent to the date of the suit down to the date of delivery of possession. 9. Two questions arose before the Court below in this connection. The first was as to the period for which the mesne profits should be allowed. The terminus a quo (the starting point), so far as the plaintiff is concerned, was, of course, when he first got delivery of possession in pursuance of his auction purchase at the revenue sale; but the terminus ad quem (the terminating point) might either be the raising of the suit or the time when the plaintiff got decreed to him the right to be on the lands or the date when he was readmitted to possession, that is, when he was put back into possession. Upon that the Court below has held that mesne profits must go to the further period up to the date when the plaintiff was given delivery of possession. 10. The court below, by its order of February 24, 1958, after deciding the question of liability of the defendants to pay future mesne profits, directed the amount thereof to be ascertained. The material portion of the said order runs thus:- "In this case relief No.1, granted in the decree, is for declaration of title and recovery of possession with Wasilat. The court below, by its order of February 24, 1958, after deciding the question of liability of the defendants to pay future mesne profits, directed the amount thereof to be ascertained. The material portion of the said order runs thus:- "In this case relief No.1, granted in the decree, is for declaration of title and recovery of possession with Wasilat. Of course the amount claimed is for the period up to the filing of the suit but nevertheless when the decree-holder has been held entitled to Wasilat he can get it up to the recovery of possession. The decree is dated 30-7-53 and D.P. is said to have been effected on 10-6-54. the decree-holder is entitled to get mesne profits ascertained up to the date of delivery of possession. The objection by the judgment-debtors viz., defendants, are rejected." It may, however, be mentioned here that the Court below subsequently by order No.99 dated 21-8-58, modified its earlier order of February 24, 1958, and held that only defendants 1 to 8 will be liable for mesne profits, and not defendants 9 to 14 also. This position is accepted on behalf of the plaintiff respondent. The appeal, accordingly, was pressed on behalf of defendants 4 to 8 only; as there is no appeal either on behalf of defendants 2 and 3 or the heirs of the deceased defendant 1, all of whom, however, are respondents 2 to 7 to the present appeal. 11. The present appeal is against the order of February 24, 1958, holding the defendants liable to pay future mesne profits up to the date of delivery of possession. 12. The only argument advanced, in support of the appeal, by Dr. Sultan Ahmad, was that the were not liable to pay future mesne profits, when they were not asked for in the plaint and when the only relief claimed in the plaint was for past mesne profits, which were claimed at Rs.3000/-, for the years 1356 to 1358 mulki, which would correspond to 1948 to 1950 till before the institution of the suit on 16-4-1951. 13. In support of his argument, Dr. Sultan Ahmad placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Mohd. 13. In support of his argument, Dr. Sultan Ahmad placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Amin v. Vakil Ahmad, AIR 1952 SC 358 ; a decision of a learned single Judge of this Court, S.K. Das, J. (as he then was) in Raghu Mahton v. Bulak Mahton, AIR 1953 Pat 289 , in which the just-mentioned Supreme Court case was referred to; a decision of mine, sitting singly, in Banesh Prasad v. Jalpa Shankar Varma, AIR 1960 Pat 260 , and, a Bench decision of this Court in Ajodhya Thakur v. Jadunandan Prasad, 1960 B.L.J.R.559, in which my decision, just mentioned, as well as several other decisions of this Court were referred to with approval. 14. The above contention of Dr. Sultan Ahmad, however, was combated by Mr. Md. Ayub, appearing for the plaintiff respondent, by countering that the decree for possession with mesne profits that has been passed in favour of the plaintiff includes in law also future mesne profits up to the date of delivery of possession, and, therefore, the plaintiff has rightly been held entitled to recover also future mesne profits up to the date of delivery of possession. In support of his argument, Mr. Ayub relied on two decisions of the Privy Council in Fakharud-din Mahomed Ahsan v. Official Trustee of Bengal, ILR 8 Cal 178 : 8 Ind App 197 (PC) and Gurudas Kundu v. Hemendra Kumar, AIR 1929 PC 300 : 56 Ind App 290 and also on Rule 12, of Order 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. 15. On a careful consideration of the argument presented, and, on a review of the authorities cited, at the Bar, I am of opinion, that the argument of Mr. Ayub is well-founded and it must prevail. It is true that in the plaint, material portions of which have been reproduced in extenso earlier, and read before, only past mesne profits up to the raising of the suit, amounting to Rs.3000/-, were specifically claimed. The plaintiff claimed in his suit that the defendants were trespassers, and, therefore, their possession was wrongful, and, as such, to read from the plaint, "they are liable to be dispossessed and to pay the mesne profits" - claiming mesne profits in a very general manner. The plaintiff claimed in his suit that the defendants were trespassers, and, therefore, their possession was wrongful, and, as such, to read from the plaint, "they are liable to be dispossessed and to pay the mesne profits" - claiming mesne profits in a very general manner. It is true that, subsequently valuing the suit, and for that purpose describing his claim in the schedule, and giving the account of mesne Profits claimed, he speaks of his claim for mesne profits for the period of dispossession, that is to say, for three years prior to the institution of the suit, as amounting to Rs.3000/-, at the rate of Rs.1000/-a year. But, in my opinion, the plaint is at all events open to the construction that the plaintiff intended to claim mesne profits up to the time of delivery of possession, although for the purpose of valuation only so much was valued as was then due; but, be that as it may, I am of opinion that under Rule 12 of Order 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure it was in the power of the Court, if it thought fit, to make a decree which should give the plaintiff mesne profits up to the date of obtaining possession. 16. Rule 12 of Order 20 of the Code is in these terms : "12. Decree for possession and mesne profits: (1) Where a suit is for the recovery of possession of immovable property and for rent or mesne profits, the Court may pass a decree : (a) for he possession of the property; (b) for the rent or mesne profits which have accrued on the property during a period prior to the institution of the suit or directing an inquiry as to such rent or mesne profits; (c) directing an inquiry as to rent or mesne profits from the institution of the suit until: (i) the delivery of possession to the decree-holder; (ii) the relinquishment of possession by the judgment-debtor with notice to the decree-holder through the Court, or (iii) the expiration of three years from the date of the decree, which ever event first occurs. (2) Where an inquiry is directed under clause (b) or clause (e), a final decree in respect of the rent or mesne profits shall be passed in accordance with the result of such inquiry". (2) Where an inquiry is directed under clause (b) or clause (e), a final decree in respect of the rent or mesne profits shall be passed in accordance with the result of such inquiry". The word of the judgment of July 30, 1953, in the suit for possession and mesne profits brought by the plaintiff in 1951, are : "3. ...........The plaintiff is entitled to eject all the defendants." "4. The plaintiff has prayed for mesne Profits also. The plaintiff is entitled to this relief. The determination of the amount of mesne profits is subjected to subsequent proceedings and the same will be determined by the appointment of a pleader commissioner", and so on. The Court, therefore, by its, just mentioned, judgment, held the plaintiff entitled to eject all the defendants and to recover possession of the 16 annas tauzi No.372 in suit with mesne profits, regarding the lands recorded in the intermediary khewat No.64, which were both specified at the foot of the plaint, and, directed the amount of mesne profits to be determined in a subsequent proceeding by a pleader commissioner. 17. It may be mentioned that the decree of the ancestor of defendants 4 to 8 against the ancestor of defendants 1 to 3 and his purchase and possession in pursuance of it were declared as annulled by the Revenue sale at which the plaintiff purchased on 26-3-47 and later got delivery of possession on 28-12-47, and, consequently, all the kabuliats executed by defendants 4 to 8 in favour of the defendants 9-14 were held to be sham transactions, and, as such, the possession of all the defendants 1 to 14 after the revenue sale and delivery of possession by virtue of it to the plaintiff, was held to be wrongful. Wrongful possession of a defendant is the very essence of claim for mesne profits and the Very intention of the decree thereof, as there can be no claim for mesne profits if the possession of the defendant has not been wrongful. 18. Wrongful possession of a defendant is the very essence of claim for mesne profits and the Very intention of the decree thereof, as there can be no claim for mesne profits if the possession of the defendant has not been wrongful. 18. Mesne profits by law is demandable up to the time of possession; and, therefore, the only question is, whether the court intended to give to the plaintiff that amount of mesne profits to which he was undoubtedly entitled to by law in his action in ejectment, or, whether it intended to put his claim for mesne profits into two, and to give him in this suit so much only as accrued up to the time of commencement of the suit, as specifically claimed, and, to leave him to bring a separate suit for the rest. The material words of the judgment, read above, in my opinion, are clear manifestations of the intention of the Court to award to the plaintiff future mesne profits also as it could do under Rule 12, Order 20 of the Code. The terms of the above quoted order itself are not inapt to instruct that conclusion. 19. In my opinion, therefore, on a proper interpretation of the judgment and decree of the court dated the 30th July, 1953, the more reasonable construction thereof is that the court, with a view to carrying out the object of the Legislature, namely, the prevention of unnecessary litigation and multiplication of suits, intended in this suit to give, with possession, that mesne profits which was by law claimable up to the time of possession. 20. There is another indication in the aforesaid judgment of the fact that the court intended to give the plaintiff mesne profits up to tie date of delivery of possession. If the Court had not intended to award future mesne profits, there was no sense in directing an enquiry into the amount of past mesne profits to be made in the subsequent proceeding, when there was no dispute about it and the suit was decreed in to ex parte. If the Court had not intended to award future mesne profits, there was no sense in directing an enquiry into the amount of past mesne profits to be made in the subsequent proceeding, when there was no dispute about it and the suit was decreed in to ex parte. As far as the past mesne Profits were concerned, the plaintiff claimed on that account a sum of Rs.3000/-, which, in my opinion, did not require any further investigation, inasmuch as, the suit having been decreed in to ex parte and the plaintiffs claim for mesne profits having been allowed, it cannot be said that the court intended an enquiry to be made into the amount of past mesne profits, even when it was not disputed at the hearing of the suit, because it was not satisfied of the claim. For these reasons, in my opinion the Court below was right in deciding, as it did, that under the decree, which became final as it was not appealed against, mesne profits were claimable up to the date of delivery of possession, and, therefore, the defendants were liable to pay future mesne profits up to the date of delivery of possession. 21. The above view was taken. on similar facts, also by Sir Robert P. Collier of the Privy Council, as far back as 1881, in Fakhruddin Mahomed Ahsan Chowdhurys case, (Supra), - 8 Ind App 197 (PC), relied upon by Mr. Ayub. In that case also, the words of the decree, under construction by their Lordships, were identical or extremely similar to those in the present case, and, the interpretation which was given by their Lordships to the term "possession with Wasilat" was that possession with Wasilat means Wasilat up to the time of possession being delivered 22. The same view also taken in the case of Gurudas Kundu Choudhury. (Supra). AIR 1929 PC 300 also relied upon by Mr. Ayub, which too, in my opinion, is on all fours with the present case. In that case, it was held by Viscount Dunedin that an order "that the claim of this suit be decreed with costs and mesne profits" means mesne profits up to the time of the plaintiffs re-admission to the land. In that case also, only past mesne profits were claimed at a certain amount, and, the suit was valued accordingly. In that case, it was held by Viscount Dunedin that an order "that the claim of this suit be decreed with costs and mesne profits" means mesne profits up to the time of the plaintiffs re-admission to the land. In that case also, only past mesne profits were claimed at a certain amount, and, the suit was valued accordingly. The Privy Council held that the amount of mesne profits claimed was only a calculation of mesne profits up to the time of the institution of the suit, but inasmuch as the decree was "with costs and mesne profits", a decree in this form is an exercise by the court of the power vested in it under Sec.211 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882, which Corresponds now to Rule 12 of Order 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The order of the High Court, in that case, holding that mesne profits must go to the further period up to the time of delivery of possession, was accordingly upheld. 23. In the instant case also, on the authority of the just mentioned two Privy Council cases, it must, therefore, be held that the plaintiff was rightly held entitled to future mesne profits up to the date when he was re-admitted to possession. 24. I will now proceed to examine the cases relied upon by Dr. Sultan Ahmad in order, to see if they, or any of them, has any application here, and furnishes a key to the solution of the question at issue. 25. In AIR 1952 SC 358 , there was admittedly no prayer for mesne profits either past or future, in the plaint at all. The only prayer made in that case was for "awarding possession and occupation of the property together with all the rights appertaining thereto", and it was held by Bhagwati, J., who pronounced the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court, that the claim for mesne profits cannot be included within this expression, and, therefore, the order of the High Court awarding mesne profits to the plaintiffs, in that case, though they had not been claimed in the plaint, was set aside and deleted from the decree. 26. 26. Also in AIR 1953 Pat 289 , there was no claim for mesne profits at all, because Das, J. at page 290, observed : "It seems to me from an examination of the documents that there was really no claim for mesne profits and the suit proceeded on the footing of two claims which the plaintiff made, namely, for possession or, in the alternative, refund of Rs.1800/- with interest", and, therefore, his Lordship held that the appellant before him was not entitled to claim any mesne profits at all. 27. In AIR 1960 Pat 260 , the plaintiff expressly claimed future mesne profits, but neither the judgment nor the decree allowed the claim for mesne profits expressly or by implication. In those circumstances it was held by me, sitting singly, following the above decision of S.K. Das, J. and of the Privy Council in 8 Ind App 197 (PC), that the claim for mesne profits must be deemed to have been refused, and, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to make an application for ascertainment of mesne profits under Order 20, Rule 12 the Code. 28. In 1960 BLJR 559 decided by Rama-swami, C.J. and Kanhaiya Singh, J. it was held, in a joint judgment, by Court that where a decree is silent on the subject of interest or Wasilat, the interest or Wasilat cannot be added in the course of execution proceedings for the reason that if relief is not allowed in the judgment or decree, it must be deemed to have been refused, and, therefore, it was held that in the absence of a specific direction in the judgment and decree that the plaintiff was entitled to mesne profits, the Court has no jurisdiction to say that the plaintiff is entitled to recover mesne profits by an application under Order 20, Rule 12 of the Code. 29. On an examination of the above cases relied upon on behalf of the, therefore, it is quite plain that in those cases either mesne profits, past or future, were-not claimed at all in the plaint or although claimed, they were not allowed by the judgment or decree, and, in those circumstances, it was held, and rightly, if I may say so with respect, that the plaintiff, in those cases, was not entitled to make an application for ascertainment of mesne profits under Order 20, Rule 12 C.P.C. 30. In the instant case, however, the position is entirely different. Here, the plaintiff claimed mesne profits in general terms, but he did not specifically mentioned also future mesne profits, although he mentioned past mesne profits; but the court, while decreeing the plaintiffs suit ex parte, decreed the plaintiffs suit for possession and mesne profits and also directed an enquiry to be made into the amount of mesne profits in a subsequent proceeding. Under rule 12 of Order 20 C.P.C as mentioned before, the court had the power to direct such an enquiry to be made. The cases relied upon by Dr. Sultan Ahmad, therefore, do not support his contention and have no application here. All that the court below had to do, and all that this Court has now to do, is to construe the order of July 30, 1953, and to carry it into effect, and, in my opinion, its meaning is hardly open to doubt. To accept the argument of the would be to deprive the said order, under construction, of its obvious meaning. 31. Under the provisions of Order 20, rule 12 of the Code, the decree-holder is not entitled to recover mesne profits beyond three years from the date of the decree, as provided by rule 12 (1) (c) (iii) of Order 20 of the Code. But where the decree itself specifically provides that mesne profits should be determined up to the date of delivery of possession, then there is no room for reading the terms of rule 12 (1) (c) (iii) of Order 20 into the decree and restrict the mesne profits only up to three years from the date of the decree as in such a case rule 12 (1) (c) (iii) of Order 20 will have no application. It is true that in the order of July 30, 1953, there is no specific mention of the words until the delivery of possession to the decree-holder", as envisaged By rule 12 (1) (c) (i) of Order 20 of the Code; but, in my opinion, the question of limitation does not arise here, inasmuch as, the decree was passed on 30-7-53 and the delivery of possession was given to the plaintiff decree-holder on 10-6-54. 32. 32. For these considerations, my concluded opinion is, which is confirmed on a consideration of the authorities discussed above, that defendants 4 to 8, along with now the heirs of the deceased defendant I and defendants 2 and 3, have rightly been held liable for future mesne profits up to the date of delivery of possession, and, therefore, the order under appeal holding them liable and directing an enquiry into the quantum of mesne profits is prefectly justified in law, and, is accordingly affirmed. 33. In view of my decision on the merits of the appeal, I do not think it is at all necessary to decide the preliminary objection raised by the plaintiff respondent as to the competency of the appeal on the ground that the order under appeal was not appealable under the Code of Civil Procedure. If, however, I had to decide it, I should probably have held, in all the circumstances of this case, that an appeal against the impugned order fixing the liability to pay mesne profits, was competent It does not, however, assist me to come to a concluded opinion on that point, because, in my view, the merit of the appeal itself is devoid of any substance. 34. The result, therefore, is that the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.