1. Having regard to Ramakrishna Bhikaji v. Bhimabai I.L.R. 15 Bom. 416 we must hold that no stamp duty was payable in espect of the mesne profits, subsequent to the institution of the suit, viz., for fasli 1305, which profits are comprised in the appeal.
2. The only contention urged with reference to the merits is that the Subordinate Judge’s conclusion that the plaintiff’s vendor had consented to the arrangement under which the third defendant held possession is against the weight of evidence. The sole evidence in support of the contention is that of the third defendant himself. We think the Subordinate Judge was right in declining to accept that evidence for the reasons given by him. We see no reason to interfere with the order made as to costs.
3. The appeal is dismissed with costs.