P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants are respondents 2 to 4 in IA No. 1253/77 in OS no. 5/67 on the file of Subordinate Judge, gudivada. The respondent in the appeal is the petitioner in I. A. No. 1253/77 in OS No. 5/ 67 on the file of Subordinate Judge, gudivada. The respondent in this appeal i. e. , petitioner in IA No. 1253/77 is Sri seetharamaswamyvari Temple, Moturu, gudivada, represented by its Executive officer. The respondent-temple filed the petition to determine future profits for Faslies 1376 to 1385 and direct the appellants to pay the same to the respondent with interest. The Executive Officer of the temple who had sworn to the affidavit had stated that the plaint schedule lands are very fertile lands capable of yielding at the rate of 20 bags paddy per acre apart from the second crop and that the net income of 10 bag of paddy will be realized from the plaint schedule lands and the rate of paddy per bags for Faslies 1376 to 1385 is ranging from rs. 34/- to Rs. 85/- and hence prayed for passing of final decree. The appellants herein, respondents 2 to 4 in the said proceeding filed a counter stating that there are no proper irrigation and drainage faeilities and the lands do not yield the second crop and they have not even realized 19 1/2 bags of paddy in some years and that they have paid cist also for Faslies 1376 to 1385. The court below had framed two points for consideration and on the strength of the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and also RW1 to RW5 and Exs. A1 to A4 and B1 to B52, had arrived at a conclusion that the final decree will be passed for Rs. 40,943-20 ps. against the appellants with costs and aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred. ( 2 ) SRI Srinivasa Murthy, representing sri T. Veerabhadrayya, the Counsel for the appellants, had contended that there is total variation between the report of the commissioner and the findings recorded by the Court below. The learned Counsel also had submitted that except the evidence of PW2 and also Ex. B1, there is no other convincing material placed before the Court to arrive at such a conclusion. The learned Counsel also had submitted that except the evidence of PW2 and also Ex. B1, there is no other convincing material placed before the Court to arrive at such a conclusion. The learned Counsel also had contended that the deductions to be made had not been properly worked out at all by the Court below. The learned Counsel had taken me through the portions of the impugned judgment. ( 3 ) ON the contrary, Sri C. S. K. V. Ramana Murthy, the learned Counsel representing the respondent-temple had vehemently contended that the fixation of the mesne profits by the Court below is based on the material available on record and in fact the Court below had discussed all the aspects in detail. The learned Counsel had drawn my attention to the impugned order especially the discussion at paragraphs 10, 13 and also 14 of the judgment and had contended that on appreciation of the evidence, in fact, the Court below had fixed the yield at the lowest rate possible and hence no further deductions can be given. The learned Counsel also had pointed out even on the aspect of deductions in fact it was discussed at paragraph 14 of the judgment and hence the amount fixed by the Court below is just and reasonable and does not warrant any interference at this appellate stage. ( 4 ) HEARD both sides and perused the material available on record. The points which arise for consideration in this appeal are :-1. Whether the impugned judgment of the Court below is liable to be interfered with? 2. To what relief? ( 5 ) AS far as Point No. 1 is concerned, as it can be seen from the record, though the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and also RW1 and RW5 had been recorded and Exs. A1 to a4 and also B1 to B52 had been marked, the crucial evidence on which the Court below had recorded the findings is that of pw2 and also Exs. B1. PW1, who was the then Executive Officer of the Temple was examined and PW2 was a tenant of the suit lands for Faslies 1387 to 1392. It is the evidence of PW1 that PW2 became the highest bidder for 51 bags of paddy and the said lease was confirmed by the commissioner of Endowments in his proceedings marked as Ex. PW1, who was the then Executive Officer of the Temple was examined and PW2 was a tenant of the suit lands for Faslies 1387 to 1392. It is the evidence of PW1 that PW2 became the highest bidder for 51 bags of paddy and the said lease was confirmed by the commissioner of Endowments in his proceedings marked as Ex. A1 and the registered lease deed was marked as Ex. A2. PW2 also in his evidence stated that he had taken the suit lands on lease and Ex. Alo and All are the receipts showing that he paid the agreed rent for Fasli 1387, Ex. A12 is the receipt for Fasli 1388, Ex. A13 is the rent for Fasli 1389 and Ex. A 14 is for Fasli 1390. In his evidence he had deposed that he got yield of 15 bags of paddy per acre. But however it was suggested that the yield of the suit lands did never exceed 10 bags of paddy in any of the faslies. However, the suggestion appears to be not clear. On discussion of the evidence, the Court below however arrived at a conclusion that on the material available the yield can be fixed as 10 bags of paddy per acre even though it was stated by PW2 that the yield would be 15 bags per acre. The learned Commissioner basing on Ex. B 1, registered extract of lease deed executed by G. Krishna Murthy and his wife on 4-10-1963 in favour of jagannadhaswamy vari Temple for the faslies 1373 to 1378 showing the rate of four bags of paddy per acre and another document Ex. B52, wherein the rent was fixed at 35 bags of paddy for Acs. 9-00, had taken into consideration and on that basis the future profits were fixed at 19 1/2 bags of paddy for entire extent of land as reasonable. But however, the Court below no doubt discussed the evidence of PW2 and also Exs. A3 to and B2 and had discussed all the aspects even furnishing a tabular column relating to the same. On a perusal of the material available on record, it is pertinent to note that except the evidence of PW2, there is no other independent evidence and pw2 at relevant time had some interest being the tenant of the temple for a particular period. On a perusal of the material available on record, it is pertinent to note that except the evidence of PW2, there is no other independent evidence and pw2 at relevant time had some interest being the tenant of the temple for a particular period. The main grievance of the appellants is that while giving deductions also proper deductions had not been made and the fixation of the amount by the Court below will not stand to any rationale and the same was fixed in an arbitrary fashion. On perusing the entire material available on record, the evidence of RW1 to RW5, which is consistent about the yield and also the evidence of PW1 and PW2, I am of the considered opinion that for ascertaining mesne profits and arriving at the correct conclusion, the report of the Commissioner and also the material available on record in the facts and circumstances of the case, may not be sufficient and hence I am of the view that the impugned judgment suffers from want of sufficient material for fixing the quantum in accordance v, !;h law. Hence, I deem it to be a fit matter to be remitted back to the Court below for giving further opportunity to both the parties to arrive at correct conclusion by recording proper findings by giving opportunity to both the parties to let in further evidence relating to all the aspects involved in the matter. ( 6 ) COMING to Point No. 2, in view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order made in IA No. 1253/77 in OS No. 5/67 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Gudivada is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court below for the purpose of affording opportunity to both the parties to let in further evidence, if any on all the aspects involved in the matter and since the matter is a very old one and inasmuch as the respondent is an institution, in the interest of justice there shall be a direction that the matter be disposed ofwithin a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. As far as the amount already deposited in pursuance of the interim order of this Court is concerned, the deposit as it stands as on today shall be maintained. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.