Judgment :- 1. The short question for decision in this case is whether the mesne profits decreed in a partition suit come within the definition of "debt" under Kerala Act XXXI of 1958. The lower court answered the question in the affirmative and in that view stopped the proceeding in execution of the decree for six months from the date of commencement of Act XXXI of 1958. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against that order. 2. The learned advocate of the appellants contends that the decree for mesne profits does not constitute a "debt" as defined under S.2(c) of Act XXXI of 1958. According to him, it is in the nature of a liability arising out of a breach of trust and therefore, it i is excepted from the definition of "debt" contained in S.2(c) by sub-cl.(iii) thereof. 3. There is a direct Division Bench ruling of this Court on this question in Mariyamma v. Thresiamma (1959 K.L.T. 989). Both the contentions referred to above seem to have been considered by the Division Bench and the learned Chief Justice, who spoke for the Court, observed that the decree for mesne profits was a "debt" as defined in Act XXXI of 1958, His Lordship observed further that the liability for mesne profits did not arise on account of any fiduciary relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. That decision applies to the present case and therefore, I do not think I should consider the other decision cited by the learned advocate of the appellants in Moottai Meera v. Chinna Sheik Abdul Kadir Rowther (A.I.R. 1939 Mad. 471). 4. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is therefore dismissed. Since the ruling of this Court came after the appeal was filed I direct the parties to bear their respective costs in this Court. Dismissed.