Judgment :- 1. This revision petition is filed against an order passed in execution of a decree rejecting the judgment-debtor's application for benefit under Act 17 of 1977. The plaintiff filed a suit to recover possession of a portion of a property trespassed upon by the defendants. That was decreed with mesne profits. When the plaintiff decree-holder applied for execution of the money portion of the decree the judgment-debtor came forward with the application that he is a'debtor' within the meaning of the definition of that word given in Act 17 of 1977 and that he is entitled to a declaration that he is statutorily discharged from the liability under the decree. The decree-holder raised, besides other contentions, the contention that the debt is exempted from the definition of the word 'debt' inasmuch as it is a liability arising out of a tortious liability. This contention has been accepted, by the executing court and hence this revision petition. 2. What will amount to a tortious liability is not capable of being precisely defined or expressed. Winfield on Tort, 10th Edition, contains the definition of tortious liability thus "Tortious liability arises from the breach of a duty primarily fixed by the law; this duty is towards persons generally and its breach is redressible by an action of unliquidated damages." Salmond on Torts, 17th Edition defines a tort as "a civil wrong for which the remedy is a common law action for unliquidated damages, and which is not exclusively the breach of a contract or the breach of a trust or other merely equitable obligation." Both these definitions do not indicate what conduct is and what is not sufficient to involve a person in tortious liability. It is not a material definition, but a formal one intended to distinguish the tortious liability from the liabilities of other kinds, such as breach of contract, breach of trust and the like. Even the learned authors are agreed that this definition does not altogether achieve its purpose. In Prof. Winfield's view tortious duties exist by virtue of the law itself and not dependent upon agreement or consent of the persons subjected to them. This is emphasised to distinguish it from contractual liability. It is the primary duty of persons not to trespass into another's land. In Prof. Winfield's view tortious duties exist by virtue of the law itself and not dependent upon agreement or consent of the persons subjected to them. This is emphasised to distinguish it from contractual liability. It is the primary duty of persons not to trespass into another's land. Breach of such a duty gives rise to a remedial duty to make redress and this is always owed to a specific person or persons and in some cases to persons generally. Looking at from this statement of the law it will be a tort if one trespasses into another's land. If he does that a liability arises in him to make redress. The nature of the redress was originally an action for damages alone. But now the law has developed and besides or in the glace of damages, other reliefs like injunction and return of the benefit obtained by the trespasser are, in suitable cases, granted. This is the legal basis on which mesne profits by way of damages is granted when the court finds that a case of: trespass has been established. In this view it is clear that a decree for mesne profits in a case where the basis of the claim and decree is a trespass on land of another is founded on a tortious liability. In this case the finding of the trial court is that the defendants trespassed into the plaintiff's land on a specified date. That finding was confirmed by the High Court in Second Appeal. It is true that the court had to go into the question of title and for that purpose measure out the land belonging to the plaintiff and the defendants and to demarcate in a plan the trespassed portion. That will not change the character of the liability of the defendants. No doubt there may be cases where by mistake or unintentionally a man may be occupying a land of another. Whether that also will be a case of trespass and the liability to make redress will be a tortious liability, need, not be gone into here. In this case the definite finding is that on a specified date the defendants trespassed into the adjoining land of the plaintiff and took the yield from the trees standing thereon. This is a case of a trespass pure and simple and the liability is a tortious liability. In this case the definite finding is that on a specified date the defendants trespassed into the adjoining land of the plaintiff and took the yield from the trees standing thereon. This is a case of a trespass pure and simple and the liability is a tortious liability. I am supported in this conclusion by the decision of Khalid, J. in Abdukkutty v. Abda Mani (1976 KLT. 591). With respect I agree with his observation that in the case of rank trespasser, his liability to make redress is a tortious liability. That is the case here. So the lower court is right in holding that the decree debt in this case arises out of a tortious liability exempted from the categories Of debts sought to be given relief of by Act 17 of 1977. In the result the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, but I make no order as to costs. Dismissed.