Order 20, Rule 18. Civil Procedure Code, and followed the ratio of the Full Bench of this Court reported in Basavayya v. Guruvayya , and ultimately held that Order 20, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure will not be applicable to a case like the present case, because when an account of the income from the property pertaining to the share of the plaintiff is ordered up to the date of the final decree what actually happens is the division of an integral portion of the hotch pot comprising of not only the property but also the income and accretions thereto up to the date of the final decree and to such a case, Order 20, Rule 12 will be inapplicable. In addition, the Division Bench also examined in detail the judgment of the Supreme Court and held that a careful perusal of the minority and the majority views shows that the entire discussion related only to the scope of Order 20, Rule 12, Civil Procedure Code, and in particular whether the preliminary decree would be binding upon the defendant at the stage of the final decree proceedings and whether the objection that the period for the award of mesne profits should not exceed three years could be allowed to be raised for the first time before the High Court. It was also pointed out by the Division Bench that in the judgment of the Supreme Court there is no reference whatever to Order 20, Rule 18, Civil Procedure Code, which deals with a case of suit for partition and mesne profits. It was also further pointed out that the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Basavayya's case was not even referred to and, therefore, it is rather difficult to countenance an argument that the Supreme Court by implication intended to over-rule the view taken by the Full Bench which has been followed in all other decisions of other High Courts. That being the position, the question of the applicability of the provisions of Order 20, Rule 12 to the instant case does not arise because in this case, though the application purports to be one under Order 20, Rule 12, Civil Procedure Code, it would fall within the second and third categories enumerated by the Full Bench and to which the provisions of Order 20, Rule 12, will not be applicable Order 20, Rule 18, Civil Procedure Code, would govern the present case and. therefore, the objection of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the mesne profits cannot be given for more than three years from the date of the decree does not hold good. (Emphasis Supplied)
