Mesne profits under CPC are capped by statute, and unsupported enhancement must be reconsidered on proper material.

Order 20 Rule 12 CPC limits future mesne profits to the earliest of delivery of possession, relinquishment with notice, or three years from the preliminary decree, so the preliminary decree could not authorise recovery beyond that statutory cap and the objection remained open. The High Court's enhancement of mesne profits was also unsustainable because it did not adequately address the commissioner's report, the trial court's findings, the period of depression, or the comparative basis adopted, and lacked sufficient reasons and factual support. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh determination of the permissible quantum up to the statutory period.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether mesne profits could be awarded beyond three years from the date of the preliminary decree in view of Order 20, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure; (ii) whether the enhancement of mesne profits by the High Court was justified on the material before it.

Issue (i): whether mesne profits could be awarded beyond three years from the date of the preliminary decree in view of Order 20, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure

Analysis: A direction for inquiry into future mesne profits must be read with the limits prescribed by Order 20, Rule 12, which permits award only until delivery of possession, relinquishment with notice, or expiry of three years from the decree, whichever occurs first. A pure question of law may ordinarily be raised at a later stage, and the omission to object earlier did not amount on the facts to consent or waiver. The preliminary decree directing inquiry up to delivery of possession could not enlarge the court's power beyond the statutory limit, and Section 97 did not preclude challenge where the operative question arose only upon the final decree.

Conclusion: Mesne profits could not be awarded for any period beyond three years from the date of the preliminary decree, and the objection was open to the appellant.

Issue (ii): whether the enhancement of mesne profits by the High Court was justified on the material before it

Analysis: The High Court enhanced the rates without adequately dealing with the Commissioner's report, the trial court's findings, the period of depression, and the comparative basis adopted for different items. The increases were made without sufficient reasons and in some instances without a sound factual foundation. The quantum therefore required reconsideration.

Conclusion: The enhancement of mesne profits by the High Court was not sustainable and the matter had to be reconsidered afresh.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part, the enhanced decree could not stand, and the question of quantum of mesne profits up to the permissible period had to be determined again by the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A decree for future mesne profits made under Order 20, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be construed in conformity with the rule's statutory limit, and an appellate court may interfere where enhancement of mesne profits is unsupported by adequate reasons or material.

Dissenting Opinion: Mudholkar J. held that the appellant had waived the objection by not raising it earlier and that Section 97 barred challenge to the preliminary decree, but agreed that the enhancement of mesne profits lacked adequate reasons and that the quantum should be reconsidered.

---