ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the order dated 19.07.2023 in E.P.No.13 of 2022 in A.T.C.No.2 of 2003 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur, whereunder an application filed under Order XXI Rule II Clause 1 Section 2 (12), Order 20 Rule 12 and Section 151 C.P.C., by the Petitioner seeking to pass decree for payment of mesne profits from the scheduled land for the years 2006-07 and 2021-22 in favour of decree holder, against Respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5 was dismissed. 2. The introductory facts: The Petitioner filed A.T.C.No.2 of 2003 under Sections 16 and 15 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) against Respondent No.1 alone seeking to declare that the price of the scheduled land i.e. Rs.1,25,000/- per acre is reasonable and the same is accepted by the Respondent and for other consequential reliefs. As per the petition, the husband of Respondent No.1 late Dr.T.Veeraiah, Dr.T.Suryanarayana, Dr.T.Sashagiri Rao and T.Satya Narayana (Retired Engineer) were brothers. 3. The 1 st Respondent was given General Power of Attorney by Dr.T.Suryanarayana to manage the properties, while Dr.T.Veeraiah died testate on 04.02.2002. Pursuant to a Will said to have been executed by Dr.T.Veeraiah, the Respondent No.1 succeeded to her husband's share of family properties situated at Mulukuduru and other places and became the absolute owner of the scheduled property. The Respondent No.1, on her behalf and on behalf of Dr.T.Suryanarayana had filed A.T.C.No.5 of 2002 before the Special Officer under the Act, Ponnur against the Petitioner, Pamidi Koteswara Rao, V.Ramakrishna, C.Paparaju and others regarding existing lease among them. The Petitioner was said to be cultivating Ac.13.65 cents and as there was threat of dispossession, at the instance of brother-in-law of Respondent No.1 i.e. T.Satyanarayana, a suit O.S.No.174 of 2002 was filed seeking permanent injunction. The Petitioner also filed A.T.C.No.3 of 2002 against Respondent No.1 and her brother-in- law, Dr.T.Suryanarayana, T.Satyanarayana and T.Seshagiri Rao to declare him as cultivating tenant of Ac.13.65 cents. 4. A compromise was said to have been entered in O.S.No.174 of 2002, A.T.C.No.5 of 2002 and A.T.C.No.3 of 2002 jointly between the parties and as per the compromise, the Respondent No.1 and her brother-in-law, Dr.T.Suryanarayana, got Ac.10.76 cents, which comprises of Ac.7.04 cents in Sy.No.56/2. 4. A compromise was said to have been entered in O.S.No.174 of 2002, A.T.C.No.5 of 2002 and A.T.C.No.3 of 2002 jointly between the parties and as per the compromise, the Respondent No.1 and her brother-in-law, Dr.T.Suryanarayana, got Ac.10.76 cents, which comprises of Ac.7.04 cents in Sy.No.56/2. Ac.0.10 cents in Sy.No.56/3, Ac.0.36 cents in Sy.No.65/5B, Ac.1.89 cents in Sy.No.473/3 and Ac.1.37 cents in Sy.No.25 and the remaining extents of lands situated in other survey numbers fell to the share of T.Satyanarayana and another brother Dr.T.Seshagiri Rao. As per the compromise, Respondent No.1 and Dr.T.Suryanarayana had agreed to permit the Petitioner to continue cultivating the land in Ac.10.76 cents as tenant and pay maktha to Respondent No.1. 5. As per the Petitioner, an extent of Ac.3.37 cents out of Ac.5.39 cents belonging to Dr.T.Suryanarayana was purchased by him and his wife and entire sale consideration was paid to Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.1, out of her share of land to an extent of Ac.5.37 cents, sold away Ac.0.76 cents in Sy.No.473/3 to one Jasti Sree Vani and Ac.0.68 cents in Sy.No.25 to Venendla Ramakrishna and retained the balance extent of Ac.3.93 cents, which is in possession of the Petitioner as tenant. The Petitioner pleaded that Respondent No.1 had offered to sell the scheduled property and he agreed to purchase the same at the rate of Rs.1,25,000/- per acre. Pursuant to the determination of sale consideration, it was pleaded that the Petitioner was entitled to pay the sale consideration in 10 equal installments of Rs.49,125/- and accordingly the said amount was paid by Demand Draft No.053831, dated 26.09.2003 drawn in the name of Respondent No.1 as per the provisions of the Act and the sale was deemed to be effective. 6. As the Respondent No.1 was not coming forward to execute sale deed, the Petitioner filed A.T.C.No.2 of 2003 under Section 16 of the Act to declare that the price of the scheduled property at the rate of Rs.1,25,000/- per acre as reasonable and to declare that the Petitioner was entitled to pay balance consideration of Rs.4,42,125/- to Respondent No.1 in 9 equal installments. During the pendency of the A.T.C., an order of status quo was passed in I.A.No.1004 of 2003. During the pendency of the A.T.C., an order of status quo was passed in I.A.No.1004 of 2003. During the pendency of the status quo order, Respondent No.1 executed registered sale deed regarding Ac.3.47 cents in Sy.No.56/2 and Ac.0.10 cents in Sy.No.56/3 items 1 and 2 of the scheduled property in favour of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively vide registered sale deed Document No.139/06, dated 03.02.2006. Hence, the relief to declare the registered sale deed in favour of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 as both null and void was also included in the relief of A.T.C. 7. Respondent No.1 filed counter denying the landlord- tenancy relationship and that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. It was pleaded that after the settlement of dispute between the Respondent No.1 and her brother-in-law, the Petitioner had given up tenancy in April, 2003 and ever since she was in possession and enjoyment of the scheduled property. Thereafter, it was pleaded that the Petitioner had failed to pay Maktha amount for the year 2002-2003 and apart from that, the Petitioner being a retired Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar, took the initiative on behalf of Respondent No.1 to execute the sale deeds in favour of Jasti Sree Vani and V. Ramakrishna as mentioned in the petition. 8. It was further pleaded that though the Petitioner proposed to purchase the scheduled lands and pay the balance Maktha within a short period, the Petitioner was avoiding payment. The Respondent No.1 was said to have been insisting the Petitioner to pay Maktha for the year 2002-2003 and it was in that context, A.T.C.No.2 of 2003 was filed with false allegations. It was contended that at no point of time Respondent No.1 agreed to sell the scheduled land to the Petitioner at the rate of Rs.1,25,000/- as there was no negotiation of sale consideration. The amount of Rs.49,125/- paid by the Petitioner by way of a Demand Draft was admitted and it was pleaded that the said amount was adjusted towards the arrears of Maktha payable for the year 2002-2003. 9. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 also filed their counter denying the allegations and contended that Respondent No.1 cultivated the land in the year 2005-2006 and raised a crop and after execution of the registered sale deed on 03.02.2006, the property was in their possession. 10. The Special Officer under the Act framed the following issues for consideration: 1. 9. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 also filed their counter denying the allegations and contended that Respondent No.1 cultivated the land in the year 2005-2006 and raised a crop and after execution of the registered sale deed on 03.02.2006, the property was in their possession. 10. The Special Officer under the Act framed the following issues for consideration: 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the declaration that the price of the scheduled lands ie. Rs.1,25,000/- per acre is reasonable, and the 1 st respondent received the 1st Installment of Rs.49,125/- by way of Demand Draft No.053831, dated 26-9-03 and thereby the sale of the scheduled land has become effective or not? 2. Whether the registered sale deed document No.139/06 dated 3-2-06 and the registered sale deed document No.140/06 dated 3-2-06 are null and void? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of suitable injunction as prayed for? 11. On behalf of the Petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.20 were marked. On behalf of the Respondents, R.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.11 were marked. The Special Officer under the Act allowed the A.T.C on 30.11.2009 declaring the price of the scheduled land at the rate of Rs.1,25,000/- per acre as reasonable and that the sale was effective from the date of payment of the first installment of Rs.49,125/- to Respondent No.1 by the Petitioner and that the balance consideration to be paid in 9 installments. The sale deed in favour of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 dated 03.02.2006 was held to be null and void. 12. Questioning the same, appeals were filed by Respondents herein. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed A.T.A.No.2 of 2010, while Respondent No.1 filed A.T.A.No.8 of 2010 before the Principal District Judge-cum-Tenancy Appellate Special Officer under the Act, Guntur. The District Appellate Court after considering the rival submissions allowed the appeals on the ground that the Petitioner had surrendered the tenancy vide orders dated 20.12.2010 and 06.07.2011 respectively. 13. The Petitioner thereafter filed two revisions i.e. C.R.P.No.3591 and 816 of 2011 before this Court questioning the orders passed in the appeals. After consideration, this Court passed a common order on 12.06.2015 upholding the order of the Appellate Authority. 14. The Petitioner thereafter filed SLP(C).Nos.28696-28697 of 2015 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 13. The Petitioner thereafter filed two revisions i.e. C.R.P.No.3591 and 816 of 2011 before this Court questioning the orders passed in the appeals. After consideration, this Court passed a common order on 12.06.2015 upholding the order of the Appellate Authority. 14. The Petitioner thereafter filed SLP(C).Nos.28696-28697 of 2015 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 27.10.2021 granted leave and after hearing the appeals on merits and after considering the provisions under Sections 14 and 15 of the Act, which deal with the procedure for surrender, right of pre-emption and scope of adjudication of dispute under Section 16 of the Act, set aside the common order in Civil Revision Petitions referred above as well as the orders of the District Court in the appeals and the order of the Special Officer under the Act in A.T.C.No.2 of 2003 dated 30.11.2009 was restored. 15. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Petitioner filed E.P.No.13 of 2022 under Order XXI Rule II Clause 1 Section 2 (12), Order XX Rule 12 and Section 151 C.P.C., seeking for mesne profits derived from the scheduled land by Respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5 for the years 2006-07 to 2021-2022. The reason for filing the execution petition was that the Petitioner was illegally dispossessed from the scheduled land on 05.02.2006, pursuant to the sale deed dated 03.02.2006, which was declared to be null and void as per the order of the Special Officer under the Act in A.T.C.No.2 of 2003, as confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C).Nos.28696-697/2015 dated 27.10.2021. 16. In the affidavit filed in support of the execution petition, it was pleaded that the Petitioner had filed suit O.S.No.313 of 2006 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur seeking for recovery of Rs.77,740/- towards cost of paddy, which was illegally taken away by Respondent Nos.2 and 4 during the pendency of the A.T.C. The suit was decreed on 28.10.2010 but was set-aside in the appeal filed by Respondents vide A.S.No.10 of 2011 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla. Challenging the said order, S.A.No.411 of 2018 was filed and during the pendency of Second Appeal, E.P.No.13 of 2022 was filed. 17. Challenging the said order, S.A.No.411 of 2018 was filed and during the pendency of Second Appeal, E.P.No.13 of 2022 was filed. 17. Subsequent to the institution of E.P., this Court taking note of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to supra, allowed S.A.No.411 of 2018 vide judgment and decree dated 21.06.2022 and restored the judgment and decree in O.S.No.313 of 2006 for Rs.77,740/- and also awarded interest @ 9% on the principal amount from the date of filing of the suit till decree, apart from costs of Rs.8,059/-. 18. The Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the claim of the Petitioner and principally contended that in the absence of any relief for mesne profits in the order of the Special Officer under the Act or in the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred supra, the application seeking mesne profits cannot be entertained. 19. The Respondent Nos.4 and 5, who were said to have supported the illegal trespass into the scheduled property filed a memo adopting the counter filed by Respondent No.2. 20. In the enquiry before the trial Court, the Petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.8, while the Respondent No.2 was examined as R.W.1. In the documents marked by the Petitioner, the judgment of this Court in S.A.No.411 of 2018 dated 21.06.2022 was marked as Ex.P.8. The Special Officer under the Act vide order dated 19.07.2023 dismissed the E.P. on the ground that the relief given to the Petitioner was declaration and permanent injunction and not for recovery of possession and therefore in the absence of any decree for possession, the execution petition seeking mesne profits cannot be entertained. Hence, the present civil revision petition is filed. 21. Heard Sri Musunuri Satyanarayana (party-in-person) and Sri A.Sai Naveen, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Sri Koutilya, learned counsel for Respondent No.5. 22. Contentions: The party in person contended that as he was illegally dispossessed from the scheduled land, he is entitled for mesne profits and the Respondents cannot be permitted to retain the benefit derived from the scheduled property during this period. 22. Contentions: The party in person contended that as he was illegally dispossessed from the scheduled land, he is entitled for mesne profits and the Respondents cannot be permitted to retain the benefit derived from the scheduled property during this period. It was also contended that the suit filed by the Petitioner seeking recovery of money against Respondents for illegally taking away paddy heaps while illegally trespassing into the property on 05.02.2006 was decreed by the trial Court and confirmed by this Court in S.A.No.411 of 2018 and therefore the Petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of mesne profits at least at the amount quantified by this court in S.A.No.411 of 2008. 23. The counsel for the Respondents contended that they were put in possession pursuant to the sale deed and being bona fide purchasers, they cannot be made to pay mesne profits as they would be ending up losing the consideration under the sale deed dated 03.02.2006 as well as mesne profits and it would be inequitable for them to be called upon to make the payment. It was also contended that the issue of mesne profits is to be decided independently in a separate suit or in an application as there is no relief granted by the trial Court regarding possession and mesne profits. 24. Reasoning : The statutory definition of the term mesne profits as per Section 2(12) CPC are that the profits received or might have been received with ordinary diligence by a person in wrongful possession is mesne profits during his period of possession. The Section 2(12) CPC reads as under; “Section 2 (12) “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” 25. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court confirming the order of the Special Officer under the Act in A.T.C.No.2 of 2003, the sale deed standing in favour of Respondent No.2 was declared to be null and void, consequently the possession of the Respondent No.2 from the date of sale is to be considered to be wrongful and illegal. 26. 26. Apart therefrom, the plea as to whether the Respondent No.2 was a bona fide purchaser was considered in S.A.No.411 of 2018 and it was held that he was not bona fide purchasers. The paragraph 34 of this judgment marked as Ex.P.8 is extracted below: “34. Though the respondents pleaded that they are bona fide purchasers of the plaint scheduled property, a perusal of the evidence of D.W.1 disproves the same. D.W.1 in his cross examination deposed that "It is true to the North of plaint scheduled property, land of my brother and his wife is situated. It is true to the South of plaint scheduled property, my mother's property is shown. It is true my mother purchased the property in the year 2004. It is true my brother and his wife purchased the property in the year 2005. My family is a joint family." These admissions made by D.W.1 in his cross examination prove that land of defendants is on two sides of plaint scheduled property and hence they are aware of the lease in favour of the appellant and appellant's cultivation of land. In view of the same, respondents would not be allowed to plead that they are bona fide purchasers of land. 27. Considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and after giving the categorical finding that the Respondent No.2 is not a bona fide purchaser, this Court in S.A.No.411 of 2018 restored Judgement and decree in O.S. No.313 of 2006 dated 28.10.2010 decreeing the suit for Rs.77,740/- as the amount towards the paddy which was taken away by Respondent Nos.2 and 4 during their act of illegal trespass on 05.02.2006. 28. As the possession of the scheduled property by the Respondent No.2 is wrongful and illegal, the said individual should be made accountable for the benefit derived from the scheduled property as long as the scheduled property is in his possession. 29. As regards the contention that there is no relief of mesne profits in the order of the Special Officer under the Act in A.T.C.No.2 of 2003 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.Ps., this Court is of the opinion that grant of mesne profits being a facet of the principle of restitution, is inherent in every Court as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kavita Trehan v. Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd. , (1994) 5 SCC 380 . The paragraphs 16, 21 and relevant portion of paragraph 22 of the said judgment are extracted below: “16. The Law of Restitution encompasses all claims founded upon the principle of unjust enrichment. ‘Restitutionary claims are to be found in equity as well as at law’. Restitutionary law has many branches. The law of quasi-contract is “that part of restitution which stems from the common indebitatus counts for money had and received and for money paid, and from quantum meruit and quantum valebant claims”. [See The Law of Restitution — Goff & Jones, 4th Edn., page 3.] Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Edn., page 434 states: “Common Law. Any civilised system of law is bound to provide remedies for cases of what has been called unjust enrichment or unjust benefit, that is, to prevent a man from retaining the money of, or some benefit derived from, another which it is against conscience that he should keep. Such remedies in English law are generically different from remedies in contract or in tort, and are now recognised to fall within a third category of the common law which has been called quasi-contract or restitution. For historical reasons, quasi-contract has traditionally been treated as part of, or together with, the law of contract. Yet independently, equity has also developed principles which are aimed at providing a remedy for unjustifiable enrichment. It may be that today these two strands are in the process of being woven into a single topic in the law, which may be termed ‘restitution’.” “21. Section 144 CPC incorporates only a part of the general law of restitution. It is not exhaustive. (See Gangadhar v. Raghubar Dayal and State Govt. of A.P. v. Manickchand Jeevraj & Co. “22. The jurisdiction to make restitution is inherent in every court and will be exercised whenever the justice of the case demands . It will be exercised under inherent powers where the case did not strictly fall within the ambit of Section 144. 30. Therefore, the Special Officer under the Act committed a grave error in not considering this aspect and should have awarded mesne profits rather than directing the Petitioner to file a separate suit even though every aspect of dispute had attained finality. 31. 30. Therefore, the Special Officer under the Act committed a grave error in not considering this aspect and should have awarded mesne profits rather than directing the Petitioner to file a separate suit even though every aspect of dispute had attained finality. 31. Result : Therefore, the impugned order dated 19.07.2023 in E.P.No.13 of 2022 is set-aside and the matter is remanded to the Special Officer under the Act for determination of mesne profits. The Special Officer under the Act shall take into consideration the judgement in A.T.C.No.2 of 2003, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Judgement and decree of this Court in S.A.No.411 of 2018 and determine mesne profits and fix appropriate interest payable to the Petitioner. The determination of mesne profits shall be concluded in six (6) months from the date receipt of the certified copy of the order taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Periyammal (dead) through L.Rs. v. V. Rajamani & another , [2025 SCC Online SC 507] 32. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.