GOVINDA BHAT, CJ. ( 1 ) THIS appeal brought on behalf of defendants 1 to 3 is directed against the judgment and decree in OS. 85 of 1972 on the file of the Court of the civil Judge, Chikodi, decreeing the suit of respondent-1 for partition and separate possession of her 1|3rd share in the suit schedule properties together with mesne profits and costs of the suit. ( 2 ) IN OS. 67 of 1969 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge, Belgaum, the suit properties were jointly allotted to the shares of defendants 1, 2 and the plaintiff, the other share having been allotted to one kashibai and Balesha, who are defendants 5 and 4 in the present suit. The previous decree in OS. 67 of 1969 has been marked as Ex. . P1. The genealogy showing the relationship of the parties appears in the genealogy given in Ext. P1. The plaintiff Kalawati alias Kallawwa and defendant-2 Laxmibai are sisters being the daughters of defendant-1 Krishnabai. Deft-3 is the son of defendant-2 Laxmibai. Defendant-1 is alleged to have taken defendant-3 in adoption after the coming into force of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The validity of the adoption by Deft-1 was in dispute in the Court below. Since nothing turns on the validity of the adoption of Deft-3, it is not necessary to further refer to this adoption. ( 3 ) IN the prior suit OS. 67 of 1969 the present suit schedule properties were jointly allotted to the shares of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2. Defendant-1 is the mother and the plaintiff and defendant-2 are the daughters. They are not the members of a joint family, but have taken the properties as tenants in common. This legal position is not disputed and cannot be disputed. After the passing of the decree contained in Ext. P1, the parties were enjoying portions of the properties separately, but they could not effect partition by metes and bounds amicably. Therefore, the plaintiff brought the above suit, out of which the present appeal arises, for partition and separate possession of her 1/3rd share. After the passing of the decree contained in Ext. P1, the parties were enjoying portions of the properties separately, but they could not effect partition by metes and bounds amicably. Therefore, the plaintiff brought the above suit, out of which the present appeal arises, for partition and separate possession of her 1/3rd share. ( 4 ) DEFENDANTS 1 to 3 contested the suit contending inter alia that the suit is not maintainable as the remedy of the plaintiff is to work out her rights for partition and separate possession in execution of the decree in the earlier suit OS. 67 of 1969. That contention was rightly rejected by the Court below and in our opinion there is no force in this contention. We have perused the decree in Ext P1 under which the shares inter-se between the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2, have not been declared. They have been together allotted a half share in the properties which are the subject matter of the compromise decree. They being the two sisters and the mother they have taken the properties as tenants-in-common. As tenants-in-common their share is 1/3rd in the properties jointly allotted to them. The Court below has held that the plaintiff is entitled to a 1/3rd share. The correctness of that rinding cannot be disputed. ( 5 ) THE Court below while passing a preliminary decree declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to a 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties has directed the ascertainment of the profits payable to the plaintiff. This part of the decree has been challenged in this appeal by Sri W. K. Joshi, learned Counsel for the appellants. This is a suit for partition and separate possession by one tenant-in-common against the other tenants-in-common. There is evidence that the plaintiff is also in possession of some of the partible" properties and defendants 1 and 2 are in possession of other properties. In a suit for partition brought by one tenant-in-common against the other tenants-in-common, each tenant-in-common is liable to render an account of the rents and profits, which he realises. It cannot be said that the possession of a tenant-in-common is wrongful, and therefore, there is no question of one tenant-in-common being made liable for mesne profits. The concept of mesne profits is entirely different from a party in receipt of rents and profits being liable to render an account. It cannot be said that the possession of a tenant-in-common is wrongful, and therefore, there is no question of one tenant-in-common being made liable for mesne profits. The concept of mesne profits is entirely different from a party in receipt of rents and profits being liable to render an account. This has been made clear in the leading case in Basavayya v. Guruvayya, AIR. 1951 Mad. 938, FB. We, therefore, set aside the decree of the Court below in so far as it directs defendants 1 and 2 to render an account of mesne profits. The proper direction should be that all the parties in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties shall render an account of rents and profits realised by them from the date of suit till the properties are divided by metes and bounds and the plaintiff is put in possession of her 1|3rd share. After the accounts are taken, there shall be an adjustment of the amounts in accordance with their respective shares. ( 6 ) THE other ground urged by Sri W. K. Joshi, learned Counsel for the appellants is that the Court below was in error in decreeing the costs against the present appellants. The Court below has given reasons as to why it has awarded costs against defendants 1 to 3. Since defendants 1 to 3 have contested the suit on wholly untenable grounds, the Court below was right in decreeing costs against them. Therefore, the ground of objection against the award of costs, is rejected. ( 7 ) NO other grounds are urged before us. ( 8 ) IN the result, for the reasons stated above, we allow the appeal in part and modify the decree of the Court below so far as the mesne profits is concerned. With regard to the future profits, there shall be a direction directing all the parties in possession. to render an account of rents and profits realised by them from the date of suit till the plaintiff is put in possession of her 113rd share. In this Court the parties are directed to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .