Short Note : 1. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that Bheriya plaintiff No.1 and the deceased defendant Bhanwaria were the real brothers. They were the jointly recorded holders of the suit lands comprised in Khata No. 18 and were in possession thereof. Another land comprising Khata No.15 was exclusively held by Bhanwaria in his own name. Vide Ex. P-4 Bhanwaria sold his share of lands in Khata No.18 to the plaintiff Bheriya. Similarly vide Ex.P-5 Bhanwaria also sold his land comprised in Khata No.15 to Bheriya S/o Munna. The defendants Kashibai and Siddhanath appellants in this appeal had, according to the plaintiffs, trespassed on the aforesaid lands and took unauthorised possession thereof. They accordingly claimed a decree for declaration of their title, possession and mesne profits. The defendant Kashibai who is the cousin of the plaintiff Bheriya and Siddanath, the other defendant claimed that Kashibai was inducted as a sub-lessee of the suit lands by the plaintiff Bheriya and since they remained in possession thereof as lessees they had acquired the rights of occupancy tenants. The trial Court held that there was no sub-lease as alleged by the defendants and that the plaintiffs were entitled to the decree prayed for by them. A decree for future mesne profits at the rate of Rs.300 was also passed against the appellants. An appeal by the appellants was dismissed. Only the amount of mesne profits was reduced from Rs. 300 per annum to 100 per annum. Held: So far as the plea regarding the appellants being inducted as sublessee of the suit lands by the recorded holders is concerned, the findings of both the Courts below are against the appellants. These findings are based not only on the oral evidence given by the parties but on a consideration of the documentary evidence also. Entries from the village papers have also been considered. The learned counsel for the appellants could not contend that these findings are either based on no evidence or have been arrived at because of any gross mis-appreciation of the evidence. In these circumstances, the appellants can not pray for reappraisal of the evidence by this Court under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. These findings are, in my opinion, binding on the appellants and do not deserve to be re-examined by this Court. 2. In these circumstances, the appellants can not pray for reappraisal of the evidence by this Court under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. These findings are, in my opinion, binding on the appellants and do not deserve to be re-examined by this Court. 2. So far as the claim for future mesne profits decreed by the Court below is concerned, it is clear that the plaintiffs in their plaint did not claim from the defendants on account of past mesne profit i.e. mesne profits from the date of unauthorised possession to the date of suit. When in these circumstances it was clear that it was not a suit for possession and past mesne profits the Courts below could not grant a decree for future mesne profits. Accordingly the decree directing payment of mesne profits at the rate of Rs.100 upto the date of suit cannot be maintained. 3. So far as the claim for future mesne profits is concerned, it cannot as already held above, be decreed in this case. The plaintiffs are, however, free to sue the defendants for future mesne profits i.e. mesne profits to which they feel they are entitled to from the date of suit till they are restored to possession as and when such suit is filed. The Court concerned shall be free to consider their claim on its own merits according to law. Because of the decree passed in this appeal, they shall not be debarred from suing the defendants for future mesne profits. If the law permits them to sue for future mesne profits and a suit is filed the same shall be considered according to law. 4. Accordingly for the reasons given above, this appeal is party allowed. The decree for declaration of title and possession passed by the Court below is maintained. The decree for future mesne profits is, however, set aside subject to the observations made above. Appeal partly allowed.