( 1 ) THIS second appeal has come to us on a reference made by our learned brother, Chandrasekhara Sastry, J. The question which has to be necessarily answered in this enquiry is whether the plaintiff, who had earlier instituted a suit for mesne profits of an immovable property and had omitted to sue for recovery of possession, if institutes a second suit for recovery of possession, such a suit is barred by Order 2, Rule 2 C. P. C. The material facts in order to appreciate the merits of the contention in this regard may briefly be stated.

( 2 ) ONE Abburi Venkata Subbarayudu had two wives. By his first wife he had one son, Raghava Rao and one daughter, Damayanthamma Raghavarao was married, but did not have any issue. He subsequently died leaving his widow, The plaintiff is the son of Damayanthamma, the daughter. The 1st defendant who is the appellant before us is the second wife.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff basing his claim on a will dated 29-8-1932 executed by Abburi Venkata Subbarayudu under which three godowns situated in Tenali were given to the daughter-in-law Venkata Ramamma for her life and vested remainder to the plaintiff filed a suit for mesne profits against the 1st defendant and the tenants (O. S. No. 36/47 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Tenali.) The suit was resisted by the 1st defendant but was subsequently decreed. It was alleged that subsequent to the execution of this will under which various properties were disposed of, Venkata Subbarayudu executed some settlement deeds in September, 1942, under which the second wife as well as the daughter-in-law got some properties with immediate effect. The daughter-in-law thus surrendered her life interest in the suit property and accelerated the vesting of the property in the plaintiff Abburi Venkata Subbarayudu died on 29-6-1943

( 4 ) THE plaintiff filed another suit in 1949 O. S. 145/49 in the Court of the District Munsif, Tenali against the 1st defendant and certain others for recovery of mesne profits. He had also sought permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant from collecting rents of the suit godowns. That suit again in respect to mesne profits was decreed.

( 5 ) IT must be recalled that in O. S. 52/48 where the will of 1932 executed by Abburi Venkata Subbarayudu was disputed by the 1st defendant setting up another will of 27-6-1943, it was found that the will of 1943 set up by the 1st defendant was false and that the will of 29-8-1932, Ex. A. 5, was a genuine will. The matter ultimately was carried to the High Court in second appeal but the said decision was affirmed.

( 6 ) THE plaintiff has now instituted the present suit for the recovery of possession. We are concerned only with one issue raised by the 1st defendant in this second appeal. It is contended by Mr. K. Krishnamurthy, the learned counsel for the appellant, that the plaintiff was setting his claim to the suit property on the basis of the will, Ex. A. 5, that the right to recover immoveable property had already accrued to him when the first suit for mesne profits was instituted and that having omitted to sue for the recovery of possession could not now in the face of Order 2, Rule 2 C. P. C. institute the suit for recovery of possession.

( 7 ) MOW Order 2 relates to the frame of suit, Rule 1 of that order enacts that every suit shall as far as practicable be framed so as to afford ground for final decision upon the subjects in dispute and to prevent further litigation concerning them. It will thus be seen that Rule 1 gives, so to say, a broad direction to frame a suit in order to get all subjects in dispute between the parties finally disposed of, so that further litigation concerning such subjects in dispute may be prevented. Rule 2 directs the joining of claims and demand of reliefs if such claims or reliefs are based on one and the same cause of action in one suit only. Rule 2 is thus an extension of the principle laid down in Rule 1. Rule 2 also provides a penally. It states