K. A. SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) AT the stage of admission, the respondent has put in appearance ; hence the petition is finally heard. ( 2 ) DURING the course of hearing on 11-8-1981 the Court felt that it was necessary to look into the judgment of the supreme Court passed in the case and also the decree passed in the suit ; therefore, the parties were directed to produce the same. Accordingly, a copy of the judgment of the Supreme Court in CA No. 1560 of 1966 dt. 11th Sept. 1969 and also a copy of the judgment of this Court in sa (b) No. 45/1956, have been produced ( 3 ) THIS CRP is directed against the order dt. 29 8 -1980 passed by the learned munsiff, Raibag holding that the provisions of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are not applicable, since the decree in question is a decree for mesne profits which is a tortious liability and as such it is exempted from the purview of the Act, in view of the provisions contained in S. 8 (d) of the Act. Accordingly, the learned munsiff has directed the execution to proceed. ( 4 ) IN this case, it is not in dispute that there is a decree for mesne profits passed against the petitioners and the present execution is to recover the amount due by way of mesne profits. It is contended by sri Hatti, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the decree for mesne profits cannot be held to arise out of a tortious liability, therefore the executing Court is not right in holding that it falls under S. 8 (d) of the Act. It is also further contended that the decree in question amounts not only to a debt but it is also a debt advanced. Hence, in the event of proving that the petitioners are debtors as defined under the Act, the liability under the decree stands wiped out. Therefore, it is contended that the executing Court is not right in over-ruling the objections and directing the execution to proceed. On the contrary, it is contended on behalf of the respondent that the liability for mesne profits arises ouf of a tortious Act, therefore it is a tortious liability ; hence a decree for mesne profits falls under S. 8 (d) of the Act. On the contrary, it is contended on behalf of the respondent that the liability for mesne profits arises ouf of a tortious Act, therefore it is a tortious liability ; hence a decree for mesne profits falls under S. 8 (d) of the Act. It is albo further contended that the decree in question cannot amount to a debt advanced. ( 5 ) THEREFORE, the points that arise for consideration in this case are : (1) Whether the liability under a decree for mesne profits is a tortious liability arising out of a tortious act ? (2) Whether it is a debt advanced ? ( 6 ) THE Supreme Court, in the aforesaid case has held as follows :"it is not necessary for us in this case to resolve the conflicting views noted above. Whatever may be the interpretation, the appellants will r. ot be entitled to inherit the properties of Maya gouda, Because, if the view of the kolhapur Courts is accepted, the plaintiff, as the Nawa Wala, is entitled to get possession, and if the Bombay veiw is accepted, it is the 7th defendant who will be entitled to inherit the watan properties of her father Maya Gouda. In either case the appellants cannot in- herit the watan properties of Maya gouda and thus they are out of the picture. The 7th defendant, against whom, also a decree for possession has been passed, did not contest the claim of the plaintiff. Nor did she file any appeal against the decree of she trial court. It has to be further noted that even the appellants have not made her a party, either before the first appellate court, or in the High Court, or even before this Court. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs". The appellants referred to in the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court are the petitioners in this CRP. The decree for mesne profits is in respect of the properties involved in the aforesaid case. Thus, it is clear that the petitioners were not entitled to remain in possession of the suit properties and their possession was not lawful. ( 7 ) S. 8 of the Act, enumerates the debts and liabilities which are not affected by the Act. The relevant clause of the said section for our purpose is cl. Thus, it is clear that the petitioners were not entitled to remain in possession of the suit properties and their possession was not lawful. ( 7 ) S. 8 of the Act, enumerates the debts and liabilities which are not affected by the Act. The relevant clause of the said section for our purpose is cl. (d), which is as follows :"certain debts and liabilities not to he affected:- -Nothing in this Act shall affect the following categories of debts and liabilities of small farmers, landless agricultural labourers and weaker sections of the people namely :- (d) any liability arising out of breach of trust or any tortious liability ;" (In the authorised publication of the act, the word 'tortious' has been printed as 'tortuous' ). Thus, a tortious liability of a debtor as defined in the Act, is not affected by the act. ( 8 ) NOW, the question for consideration is whether the liability under a decree for mesne profits is a tortious liability arising out of a tortious act. The expression "mesne profits" has been defined under s. 2 (12) of CPC, as follows : "mesne profits" of property means those profits which the person in wrongful possession of such property actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received therefrom, together with interest on such profits, but shall not include profits due to improvements made by the person in wrongful possession". Thus, the definition of the word "mesne profits" goes to show that it is a profit derived out of wrongful possession. An act of wrongful possession is nothing but a civil wrong. Tortious act is nothing but a wrongful act. Tort is an act which is either contrary to law or violation of an absolute right. Thus, it is a civil wrong for which a remedy is a common law action for unliquidated damages. Thus, the liability for mesne profits is a tortious liability. Therefore, a decree for mesne profits passed on the basis of such a liability falls under S. 8 (d) of the act. Consequently, it follows that the liability under the decree in question is not affected by the provisions of the Act, as it falls under S. 8 (d) of the Act. The first point is answered accordingly. Therefore, a decree for mesne profits passed on the basis of such a liability falls under S. 8 (d) of the act. Consequently, it follows that the liability under the decree in question is not affected by the provisions of the Act, as it falls under S. 8 (d) of the Act. The first point is answered accordingly. ( 9 ) IN view of the aforesaid conclusion reached by me, though it is not necessary to consider the second point, but in view of the fact that it is urged and it arises in the case, I proceed to consider the same. A decree for mesne profits cannot at all be considered to be a debt advanced. As it is already pointed out, it is a liability arising out of a tortious Act committed by the party. Whereas in the case of debt, the liability arises out of a contract between the parties. That being so, the liability in the case of a debt arises out of a lawful act of the parties. That being so it is not possible to hold that a decree for mesne profits is a debt advanced. However, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Venkatarathanam, N. G. v. N. S. Nagendra Gupta (1 ). That was a case in which the partnership firm was dissolved and while settling the accounts, a decree was obtained and. the same was put into execution by the decree holder. Thus, the decree which came up for consideration was one which was passed on the basis of an obligation arising out of contract. It was not a decree arising out of a tortious liability and it was this decree which was held to amount to a debt advanced. In the instant case, as it is already pointed out, the decree is not passed on the basis of a liability arising out of the lawful act of the parties but on the basis of the tortious act of the petitioners. Therefore, the aforesaid decision cannot be applied to the present case. ( 10 ) A Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Ganesh Bisto v. Nagesh Bisto (2), in respect of a decree for costs, has held that such a decree does not amount to a debt advanced. Therefore, the aforesaid decision cannot be applied to the present case. ( 10 ) A Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Ganesh Bisto v. Nagesh Bisto (2), in respect of a decree for costs, has held that such a decree does not amount to a debt advanced. Relevant portion of the judgment is as follows : "even on the basis of a liberal and beneficial construction said to be apposite in the context of a socio economic and welfare legislation, it cannot be held that costs awarded by a Court against a 'debtor' partake of the nature of or arise from a 'debt advanced' within the meaning of Cl. (a) of S. 4". In the instant case also awarding of mesne profits is nothing but to compensate or indemnify the person who is illegally deprived of the enjoyment of his property. Similarly, awarding of costs is also intended to compensate the decree holder who has incurred expenses for prosecuting a legal proceeding to establish his lawful claim. Thus, in the context of applicability of the provisions of the Act, what applies to a decree for costs also applies to a decree for mesne profits. The object of both the decrees is to compensate the party for the loss caused to it. Hence, I am of the view that the liability for mesne profits is not a debt advanced. ( 11 ) IN view of the aforesaid conclusions reached by me, the ultimate decision arrived at by the learned Munsiff to proceed with the execction does not call for interference. Accordingly, this civil revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. --- *** --- .