Judgment :- 1. While disposing of an appeal in a suit for redemption, the Subordinate Judge, Pathanamthitta directed the issue regarding mesne profits to be decided under Order XX R.12 of the C.P.C. The decree of the Subordinate Judge was confirmed in Second Appeal. The enquiry was conducted by the trial court after the decree-holder took delivery of the property in execution. The enquiry revealed that the income of the property was much,more than the claim made in the plaint. The court, however, limited mesne profits to the figure mentioned in the plaint. The decision was confirmed in appeal. The above decision is challenged in this Second Appeal, by the plaintiff decree-holder. 2. The provisions relevant to the enquiry are contained in Order VII, R.2, Order XX R.12(1)(c) and S.44 of the Court Fees Act. Under Order VII R.2, where the plaintiff sues for mesne profits, he should state approximately the amount sued for. S.44 of the Court Fees Act states that in a suit for mesne profits, fee should be computed where the amount is stated approximately and sued for, on such amount. If the profits ascertained to be due to the plaintiff are in excess of the profits as approximately estimated and sued for, no decree should be passed until the difference between the fee actually paid and the fee that would have been payable, bad the suit comprised the whole of the profits so ascertained, is paid. These two provisions assume that a decree can be passed for mesne profits in excess of what is mentioned in the plaint, if on an adjudication, it is found that the property would fetch a higher income, the only condition being that the plaintiff should pay the additional court fee required for the excess amount. Order XX R.12 directs that where the suit is for recovery of possession of immovable property with mesne profits, the court is competent to pass a decree directing an enquiry as to the mesne profits from the institution of the suit until delivery of possession to the decree-holder or the expiration of three years from the date of the decree whichever event first occurs. Where an enquiry is so directed, a final decree in respect of the mesne profits should be passed in accordance with the result of such inquiry. 3. There are two reported decisions of this Court on the point involved. Where an enquiry is so directed, a final decree in respect of the mesne profits should be passed in accordance with the result of such inquiry. 3. There are two reported decisions of this Court on the point involved. In K. C. Alexander v. Nair Service Society Ltd. (AIR. 1966 Kerala 286), a Division Bench of this Court had occasion to consider the extent of mesne profits to be allowed in a case where the quantum mentioned in the plaint is less than the result of an enquiry under Order XX,Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The discussion proceeds as follows: "It is pointed out on behalf of the 1st defendant that the claim made in the plaint in respect of mesne profits is only at the rate of Rs. 5000 per annum and it is contended that the decree cannot award anything more. This is to misunderstand the nature of the claim for mesne profits made in this particular case and the nature of such a claim in general. Having regard to the definition of "mesne profits" in S.2 (12) of the Code, it is apparent that mesne profits are something which a plaintiff cannot evaluate and which it is solely for the court to determine on the evidence before it. As in a suit for an account, the plaintiff can only mention rough figure as the amount which will be found due to him, and that is why the second paragraph of Order VII R.2 of the Code makes an exception to the general principle laid down in the first paragraph that in a suit for money the plaint shall state the precise amount claimed and says that when the claim is for mesne profits, or for an amount which will be found due on taking unsettled accounts the plaint need only state approximately the amount sued for. S.11 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 makes the position even clearer. It shows that the claim in a suit for mesne prof its is only a rough estimate even if a precise amount it stated and that it is for the court to ascertain is the true amount. And this can be in excess of the amount claimed. S.11 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 makes the position even clearer. It shows that the claim in a suit for mesne prof its is only a rough estimate even if a precise amount it stated and that it is for the court to ascertain is the true amount. And this can be in excess of the amount claimed. For, it says that in suits for mesne profits or for an account, if the profits or amount decreed are in excess of that claimed, the decree shall not be executed until the difference in court fee is paid. In this particular case, the relief sought in respect of mesne profits (by prayer No. 2 in the plaint) is that the court should award all profits received by the defendants from the property, both before and after the institution of the suit, at the rate estimated by the plaintiff at 35625 fanams (Rs. 5000) per annum. This, is seems to us, is just what is required by Order VII R.2 of the Code." In Kunhiraman v. Kunhi (1968 KLT 264), the identical question arose for consideration. The plaintiff therein claimed for payment of future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 300/-a year which quantum was disputed by the defendant. The court left the quantum to be decided in the final decree proceedings. On an enquiry, the profit of the property was found to be a higher figure. The defendant contended that the plaintiff having made a specific claim of Rs. 300/-per annum, was not entitled to anything more. Madhavan Nair J. following the principle laid down in Messrs. Trojan & Co. v. M.N.N. Nagappa Chettiar (AIR, 1953 S.C. 235) that a case should not be decided on grounds outside the pleadings held that the plaintiff was entitled only to the rate claimed in the plaint. It is also observed that a higher amount than that mentioned in the plaint can be allowed only in cases where the plaintiff approximately estimates the quantum of mesne profits. No reference is made in the judgment to the earlier Division Bench ruling in K. C. Alexander v. Nair Service Society Ltd. (AIR. 1966 Kerala 286). 4. There are other rulings on the point, one of the earliest cases being the one reported in Jadoomony Dabee & Others (Decree-holders) v. Hafez Mahomed Ali Khan (Judgment Debtor) (ILR. 8 Calcutta 295). No reference is made in the judgment to the earlier Division Bench ruling in K. C. Alexander v. Nair Service Society Ltd. (AIR. 1966 Kerala 286). 4. There are other rulings on the point, one of the earliest cases being the one reported in Jadoomony Dabee & Others (Decree-holders) v. Hafez Mahomed Ali Khan (Judgment Debtor) (ILR. 8 Calcutta 295). In that case, an earlier decision of the Calcutta High Court in Baboojan Jha v. Byjnath Dutt Jha (ILR. 6 Calcutta 474) was distinguished and mesne profits was allowed in excess of the plaint claim. The decision in Baboojan Jha v. Byjnath Dutt Jha was explained as follows: "In that case, as appears from the judgment delivered, the annual rent of the land which formed the measure of mesne profits was 'deliberately claimed' in the plaint; whereas here it is only estimated approximately." The Court also observed: "The plaintiffs having, therefore, obtained a decree which left the amount due as mesne profits to be ascertained in execution, would not be limited by the amount stated in their plaint, and as pointed out by Dwarkanath Mitter, J. in the case of Pearee Soonduree Dossee v. Eshan Chunder Bose 16 Weekly Reporter 302, the Court in execution of a decree cannot look behind the decree when that decree does not limit the amount of wasilat to be awarded." A similar decision was taken in Gouri Prasad Koondoo v. Reily (ILR. 9 Calcutta 112) wherein also it was held that when a decree directs that the amount of mesne profits be ascertained in execution, the plaintiff is not limited to the amount or rate stated in his plaint, though such statement may be used as evidence against him and in favour of the defendant. In other words, there is no estoppel against the plaintiff from proving that he is entitled to a larger sum as mesne profits than that claimed in the plaint. In Kota Reddy v. Chandrasekhara (AIR. 1963 Andhra Pradesh 42), the above decisions of the Calcutta High Court were followed and it was held that the plaintiff having had no special means of knowing the exact income from the lands during the relevant period was not estopped from claiming a larger sum as mesne profits than what was mentioned in the plaint. The case in Jagannath Prasad v. Badiul Mulk Khan (AIR. 1954 Patna 447) contains the following observations: "Mr. The case in Jagannath Prasad v. Badiul Mulk Khan (AIR. 1954 Patna 447) contains the following observations: "Mr. Verma put forward the contention that, merely because for the previous years the plaintiffs have claimed mesne profits at reduced rates, there is no question of estoppel. In our opinion, the argument addressed on behalf of the appellants is well founded. The claim for the past years from 1345 to 1347 Fasli made by the plaintiffs was at the flat rate of Rs. 5 per bigha of Sch.C and at the flat rate of Rs. 318/- per bigha of Sch. D land. It is no doubt a circumstance in this case to be taken into account for the purpose of assessment of mesne profits, but the admission in the plaint is, by no means, conclusive. It might well be that the plaintiffs deliberately claimed mesne profits at a low rate for the purpose of avoiding payment of court fee. The real test to be applied is what an ordinary prudent agriculturist would have grown on the land in dispute for the years 1348 to 1351 Fasli. We think the learned Additional Subordinate Judge has misdirected himself in law in holding that the claim of the plaintiffs for the years 1345 to 1347 Fasli was a decisive circumstance." It is evident from the above cases that ordinarily a plaintiff out of possession and suing for recovery of property is not bound by the statement in the plaint regarding the quantum of mesne profits. The quantum mentioned in the plaint will be taken as a statement in conformity with the provision contained in Order VII R.2 and an approximate estimate of mesne profits. But in a case where the plaintiff has special means of knowledge of the profits of the property during the particular period, the statement of the plaintiff regarding the quantum will be presumed to be based on such knowledge and may work as an admission by him. But the presumption is rebuttable and the admission may not always be conclusive evidence. This is because the Court having not accepted the estimate of mesne profits mentioned in the plaint while passing preliminary decree and having directed an enquiry, is not expected to go behind the direction and pin down the plaintiff to what is mentioned in the plaint. That will be going behind the decree. 5. This is because the Court having not accepted the estimate of mesne profits mentioned in the plaint while passing preliminary decree and having directed an enquiry, is not expected to go behind the direction and pin down the plaintiff to what is mentioned in the plaint. That will be going behind the decree. 5. In the instant case, the appellant was out of possession during the period of the mortgage and he is not expected to know the exact quantum of mesne profits during the particular period. Therefore, the mention of the quantum in the plaint should be taken as an approximate estimate and does not preclude him from proving that the property would yield something more than what is claimed in the plaint. In the light of the above, the finding of the two courts below that the appellant is entitled only to mesne profits at the rate mentioned in the plaint cannot be sustained. The appellant will be entitled to mesne profits on the basis of the enquiry under Order XX R.12. 6. One other point that is raised relates to interest ob mesne profits. The appellant would contend that in awarding mesne profits, interest should also be taken into account. Reliance has been placed on the decisions reported in Fateh Chand v. Balkishan Dass (AIR.1963 S.C.1405) and M.N. Dasjee Varu & Ors. v. Board of Trustees (1965 S.C. 1231= 1965(2) S.C.W.R. 259). In both the above cases, it has been held that under S.2 (12) of the Code of Civil Procedure mesne profits includes interest on profits as an integral part of it. The respondents' counsel has placed reliance on Pankunni v. Raman (AIR.1931 Madras 650) (F.B.). In that case, the final decree fixing the amount of mesne profits was silent regarding interest. A claim was made in execution that interest should also be paid. It was held that if in fixing the amount of mesne profits no interest was awarded, it was not competent to the executing Court to award interest. The decision does not apply to an enquiry under 0.20 R.12. The appellant is, therefore, entitled to interest at 6% per annum on the mesne profits due to him. The Second Appeal is allowed as stated above. The appellant will be entitled to his costs. Allowed.