The cause of action for a suit for mesne profits is the wrongful possession of the property by the defendant, and successive suits for mesne profits for different periods between the same parties are barred under Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

JUDGMENT - 1. The question which falls for decision in this Second Appeal is whether the suit filed by the appellant to recover mesne profits of the years 1951-52 and 1952-53 is barred under Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by reason of a previous suit which was filed by him on the 17th of February 1954 to recover mesne profits of the year 1950-51.

2. Two agricultural lands bearing survey Nos. 41/1 and 63, situated at Brahma, District Akola, originally belonged to Uttamrao and others. In execution of a decree which was obtained by one Nathamal, the lands were put to sale and were purchased by the appellant who obtained actual possession thereof on the 5th of August 1950. The 1st defendant and the predecessors-in-tltle of some of the other defendants hereafter filed an application under Order 21, Rule 100 of the Civil Procedure Code stating that they were in lawful possession of the property and complaining that the appellant had unlawfully dispossessed them. That application was granted, as a result whereof possession was restored to the defendants on the 16th of July 1951. The appellant then brought a suit under Order 21, Rule 103 of the Civil Procedure Code to establish his right to the present possession of the property. That suit was decreed and the appellant regained possession on the 2nd December 1953. It shall have been noticed that as a result of the order which was passed in the proceedings taken by the defendants under Order 21, Rule 100, they were In possession from 16th of July 1951 till the 2nd of December 1953. On the 17th of February 1954 the appellant filed Civil Suit No. 12/B of 1954 against the defendants to recover mesne profits for the year 1950-51. The cause of action as set out In the plaint was as follows:

(a) that though the plaintiff was put In possession or the fields on the 5th of August 1950, the defendants continued to receive the profits for the whole of the agricultural season of 1950-51:

(b) that the defendants were in wrongful possession of the fields for the year 1950-51; and

(c) that the defendants were, therefore, liable to repay to the appellant the profits which they had made as persons in wrongful possession of the property. The suit was decreed on the 16th February 1955. The appellant, thereafter, filed the present suit on the 7th of March 1955 claiming mesne profits for the years 1951-52 and 52-53. In paragraph 2 Clause (c) of the plaint, the appellant has repeated the basic allegations which he had made against the defendants in the earlier suit and has stared that the defendants were in wrongful possession of the property for the years 1951-52 and 1952-53. In paragraph 6 of the plaint which sets out the cause of action, it is stated that the cause of action to recover mesne profits for the year 1951-52 arose on the 31st of March 1952, "being the end of the agricultural year 1951-52", and that the cause of action to recover mesne profits for 1952-53 arose on the 31st of March 1953, "which is the end of that agricultural year".

3. The principal defence to the suit was that the clam for mesne profits for the years 1951-52 and 1952-53 should have been included in the earlier suit which was filed on the 17th of February 1954 for the mesne profits of the year 1950-51. It was contended on behalf of the defendants that the right to relief in the two suits arose out of the same cause of action and as the present claim could have been included in the earlier suit, the present suit was barred under Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The contention of the defendants has found favour with both the Courts, below who have dismissed the suit on the narrow ground of the bar arising under Order 2 Rule 2. Being aggrieved by the decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Washim, the plaintiff has filed this Second Appeal.

4. The question which falls for determination is whether the present suit which was filed on the 7th of March 1955 to recover mesne profits of the year

Click Here to Read the rest of this document