KULKARNI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a revision by judgment-debtors-4 (A) and 4 (B) against the order dated 16-10-1984 passed by the Munsiff, kumta, in Execution Case No. 53 of 1981 holding that the decree is executable. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT-1 Honnamma had filed a suit in O. S. No. 310 of 1945 on the file of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kumta, against 17 defendants for partition and possession and also for a declaration that the sale deeds executed by defendants-1 and 2 were not binding on her. A preliminary decree came to be passed in that suit in February 1947. It reads as: ( 3 ) THE shares of plaintiff and defendants-1 to 3 in the suit house are declared as below : - for plaintiff's share : ELIHI and a. ISINIMI. For defendant-3's share : IHKIB and minipoi. For defendant-2's share: LIF JIN and OIPIQIGI. For defendant-2's share : HJICKand giqiribi. Defendant-3 should erect walls along IL and LB in the ground floor. Plaimiff and defendant-3 should construct a wall between Ml and Nl. Defendant-2 should erect a wall along MKI and RISI and should construct a wall along HJI and ZQI. Dffendant-1 should construct a wall between Ol and PI. A wall should be constructed by plaintiff on PIG and another by defen- dant-2 on MKI. Plaintiff, defendant-3 and defendants-1 and 2 should construct wall along AIMI, MIOI, Olgl, and GIBl respectively. The space SIDICIRI in the storey shall be jointly enjoyed by plaintiff and defendants-1 to 3 by using the staircase in RICI. If the parties fail to carry out the directions as above, they are allowed to get the walls, etc. , made in ex cution proceedings at the cost of the defaulting party or parties. Plaintiff and defendsnts-1 to 3 are at liberty to have doors to their respective shares in the story along RISI. The sale of suit serials 1 to 3, 5 to 7, 9 to 25, 29 to 35 under Exh. 93 and the sale of suit serials 4, 35 to 44, 46 to 65, 67, 68, 70 to 80a, 81 to 102 under Exh. 85 is set aside so far as the 1/3rd share of defendant-3 therein is concerned provided he pays RE. 400/- to defendant-14 and Rs. 2,000/- to defendant-4. 93 and the sale of suit serials 4, 35 to 44, 46 to 65, 67, 68, 70 to 80a, 81 to 102 under Exh. 85 is set aside so far as the 1/3rd share of defendant-3 therein is concerned provided he pays RE. 400/- to defendant-14 and Rs. 2,000/- to defendant-4. It is hereby declared that the plaintiff, defendants-1, 2 and 3 are each entitled to 1/4th share in such serials 8, 26 to 28, 45, 66, 69, 60 BCD, 104 to 115 to 11 5 and their defendant-3 is entitled to1/3rd share in suit serials 4, 36 to 44, 46 to 65, 67, 68, 70 to 80a, 81 to 102, 1 to 3, 5 to 7, 9 10 25, 2s to 35 if he makes payments of the amounts as directed above. Partition of the lands shall be effected by the Collector, his Gazetted subordinate deputed by him in that behalf in the light of the above directions end possession delivered to plaintiff. Partition shall be so effected that the portions of the suit lands sold to defendants-5 to 13 and 15 to 17 (viz. , suit serials 52, 53, 54,56, 36, 37, 39, 40,47,48,49,58,59,60, 4, 50, 51, 80a, 61, 62, 63, 38, 41, 42 and 62), should goes far as possible go to the shares of defendants-1 and 2 and the portions of the lands adjacent to the share of the parties in the house should go to the respective parties. Defendant-3 may be put into possession of his shares in the lands and the house as declared above provided he pays necessary Court fees due to Government. Parties to bear their own costs. 28th february, 1947. Sd/- civil Judge. " defendant-4 in the said suit was the father of the present judgment-debtors-4 (A) and 4 (B) Defendants-1 to 3 were the members of a joint family of which the plaintiff was a member. Defendant-4 was an alienee of some of the properties from defeno'ants-1 and 2, revision-petitioner. 2 is the son of plaintiff-1 Honnamma and her husband Bommayya. The plaintiff Honnamma was awarded 1/4th share in some properties. Defendant-3 Vinayak was held to be entitled to 1/3 share in some properties. Defendant-4 was an alienee of some of the properties from defeno'ants-1 and 2, revision-petitioner. 2 is the son of plaintiff-1 Honnamma and her husband Bommayya. The plaintiff Honnamma was awarded 1/4th share in some properties. Defendant-3 Vinayak was held to be entitled to 1/3 share in some properties. The determination of the profits was ordered under Order 20 Rule 18 C. P. C. ( 4 ) IN pursuance to the preliminary decree, there was an actual partition and as per that partition the plaintiff and defendant-3 were put in possession of the respective properties allotted to them by the Deputy Commissioner in 1950. ( 5 ) THEREAFTER the plaintiff and defendant-3 filed an application for determination of the taking of accounts. A commissioner was appointed for determining the profits. The Commissioner made a report and the Court accordingly passed a decree in terms of the report of the Commissioner. The Court passed the following final decree :'it is ordered and decreed that the suit is decreed for mesne profits of Rs. 10,103-05 to be paid to the petitioners by the defendants-1, 2, 4a and B and 14 with interest from 24-1-1956 the date of delivery of possession of the properties to the petitioners till the date of recovery at 6 per cent per annum. These defend nts do pay to the petitioners the cost of Rs. 25- (Rupees twenty five only) etc. " ( 6 ) SO far as difendant-4 is concerned, he appears to have purchased some properties at SI. Nos 36 to 115 from defendants-1 and 2. This sale deed was held to be not binding on the plaintiff. Thereafter when the matter was sent to the Deputy Commissioner for pertition, some of the properties which had been purchased by defendant-4 were allotted to the plaintiff Honnamma and defendant-3. ( 7 ) SOME properties out of the properties purchased by defendant-4 were allotted to other including defendants-1 and 2. ( 8 ) THEREFORE now the question arises whether the plaintiff and defen- dant-3 are entitled to get mesne profits in respect of all the properties purchased bv defendant-4 or whether in respect of the properties which have now been allotted to the plaintiff and defendant-3. ( 9 ) THE decree in question is joint and several in the sense that the defendents- 1, 2, 4a and 4b and 14 are ordered to pay the so called mesne profits. ( 9 ) THE decree in question is joint and several in the sense that the defendents- 1, 2, 4a and 4b and 14 are ordered to pay the so called mesne profits. A similar matter reported in Gurudas Kundu choudhury and others v Kumar Hemendra kumar Roy and others, AIR 1929 PC 300 is of considerable importance in resolving the difficulty envisaged in this case. The Privy Council said on page 302 as :"mr. Upjohn has argued the case with his usual ability and more than his usual ingenuity, and it comes to this: He begins with the decree and he says that was a decree for joint and several liability. Then he says : 'oh, those people really did not take this point sufficiently. ' Well, they may not have taken it sufficiently in the first Court because their Lordships think they rather wandered into the question which they have already dealt with, but their Lordships think it is perfectly clear from what has been read of the judgment that they took it in their second point referred to by the High Court. Than the argument proceeds thus :. . . . . . . . Their Lordships have great difficulty in looking upon Srish as a trespasser, or, for that matter, in one sense, even the Kundus as trespassers, because they were in possession of the land and on the only legal title to it which existed, namely, the lease from the Government, it is quite true in one sense that they were in wrongful possession because they were taking the whole profits, whereas they were only entitled to six annas of the profits and not to 16 annas of the profits. Ba that however as it may, their Lordships cannot accept this argument. They do not view the decrae as a proper joint and several decree. They think it is to be construed applicando singula singulis. Let this test be taken : Suppose any one of the numerous defendants had refused to quit possession, could all the other defendants have been put in prison because that one defendant was in contumacy to the decree ? They think it is to be construed applicando singula singulis. Let this test be taken : Suppose any one of the numerous defendants had refused to quit possession, could all the other defendants have been put in prison because that one defendant was in contumacy to the decree ? What authority is there for saying that under such a decree as aginst any one particular defendant you are entitled to say: i will hold you liable not for the mesne profits which you got according to the terms of the Act, but for the mesne profits which somebody else got and with whom, under the decree, you are liable ? Their Lordships think it would be the height of injustice to hold that and they do not see that they are bound to hold it. Therefore, their Lordships think that the basis of the judgment of the High court here fails and that dealing with these Kundu defendants, and with them alone, their liability is just exactly what it is said to be by Section 211; civil Procedure Code, viz. , that which they themselves received, no case having been made that they by ordinary diligence could have got any more. "therefore the principle laid down by the Privy Council is that the question of mesne profits or accounting will have to be limited to the properties which can be said to be in possession of the parties and also it can be said without any difficulty that the plaintiff decree holder would be entitled to mesne profits only in respect of those properties which were in unlawful possession of the defendants and which have been allotted to the plaintiff. It follows that if all the properties which were in unlawful possession of the defendants have not been allotted to the plaintiff and if only some of them are allotted to the plaintitf, the plaintiff would be entitled to get mesne profits only in respect of those properties which have been put into her possession from the defendants. The matter is made much clear by the decision in Sheobalaksingh v achutanand Singh and others (AIR 1943 patna 80 ). The matter is made much clear by the decision in Sheobalaksingh v achutanand Singh and others (AIR 1943 patna 80 ). It is stated therein as :-"the judgment-debtors who were co- sharers maliks having definite shares in the village settled certain land with third persons which they had no right in law to settle and received rents from those persons in proportion to their shares. A decree for mesne profits was passed againstall the judgment-debtors jointly and severally : held that though in form the decree was joint and several, in substance it was a decree against the various judgment-debtors for their shares of the mesne profits and therefore the whole amount of the decree could not be recovered from one Judgment-debtor alone. Even in the absence of sny direction in the decree the executing court ccuid apportion the amount of mesne profits leviable from each judgment-debtor. "a similar principle has been laid down in Ayudayappan Chettiar v Kanthimathi ammal (AIR 1966 Madras 319 ). ( 10 ) THE Learned Counsel Shri Chaitanya Hagde referred me to Lucy Kochuvareed v P. Mariappa Go under and others (AIR 1977 SC 1214 ). It was a case where the Court had come to the conclusion that all the defendants were the trespassers, and therefore they were liable. It was a case of mesne profits to be recovered from the trespassers. In the said case the question of taking accounts under Order 20 Rule 18 C P. C. did not arise at all. The very basis of a decree under Order 20 Rule 18 CPC is that the person in possession of the property allotted to the decree holder should be ordered to pay it. Therefore the facts available in the said Supreme Court case are altogether different. Even in the said Supreme Court case it is made clear that the parties are answerable for mesne profits to the plaintiff only in respect of the properties to which the plaintiff is entitled. Therefore the principle laid down by the said Supreme court case, in my opinion, does not run counter to the principles laid down by the Privy Council case, Patna case and Madras case. Therefore the principle laid down by the said Supreme court case, in my opinion, does not run counter to the principles laid down by the Privy Council case, Patna case and Madras case. Therefore, under these circumstances, the executing Court will have to find out as to what mesne profits are to be paid bv judgment debtors 4a and 4b and it should further find out as to which properties out of the properties purchased by defendant-4 have been allotted to the plaintiff and defendant-3 and it is only in respect of such properties allotted to the plaintiff and defendant-3 that the judgment debtor would be liable in law to pay mesne profits. Further as can be seen from the order passed by the Court below, it is only judgment debtor-4a and 48 that have been made parties while final decree for mesne profits is passed against defendants-1, 2, 4a and 4b and 14. It is no doubt true that it is the privilege of the decree holder to recover mesne profits from any one of the joint decree holders. But it does not mean that he should not make the other judgment debtors also as parties. All the judgment debtors should be made parties, because the executing Court will have to find out as to how and in what proportion the mesne profits awarded in a lumpsum should be apportioned between them. ( 11 ) IT is submitted that Rs. 3,000/- are deposited by the revision petitioners in the Court below. That amount of rs. 3,000/- should be paid to the decree holders by the Court below and it may be deducted from the amount which may be ultimately found due. ( 12 ) THEREFORE, under these circumstances, the order passed by the Trial court is set aside. The Revision is allowed. The matter is sent back to the executing Court for fresh consideration in the lignt of the discussion made above. --- *** --- .