Baldeo Rai vs Ram Ekbal Singh

The appellants in this case are aggrieved by a decree for mesne profits on the basis of the actual productive power of the land without taking into calculation the cost of labour for growing and reaping the crops. It is urged on behalf of the respondents that the view taken by the Allahabad Court has been that where the cultivation of the land has been done by a trespasser he is not entitled to such expenses. This, no doubt, was the view taken in the Full Beech decision in Altaf Ali Vs. Lalji Mal and Another, , but even that view has been considerably modified by the decision in Abdul Ghofur v. Raja Ram 23 A. 252 : A.W.N. (1901) 80. Certainly the Calcutta view has always been that where there has been a trespass no more will be given against the trespasser than what a man of ordinary capacity and diligence would gain from the trespass. In this view it is char that the costs of cultivation and reaping should have been allowed. We assess these costs at thirty-three per cent and direct that the decree made by the loner Appellate Court be reduced by one-third. The plaintiff respondents in the first instance seem to have grossly overvalued their claim. We, therefore, direct that each party pay his own costs throughout these proceedings.