B.P.JHA, J.

1. The Civil Revision Petition has been referred by a Division Bench to the Full Bench for settling the correctness of the two inconsistent Bench decisions of the Patna High Court in Ram Narain Prasad Sah V/s. Ramji Prasad Sah, AIR 1956 Pat 244 and in Ajodhya Missir V/s. Nageshwar Prasad, 1963 0 BLJR 297.

2. The short point of law for consideration in this revision petition is : Whether an application by the plaintiff in the course of the preparation of the final decree for an enquiry into the profits of the properties realised by the defendants during the pendency of the suit and before the preparation of the final decree is maintainable or not ?

3. The answer must be given in the affirmative. To start with, in the earliest decision of the Privy Council, Pirthipal V/s. Jowahir Singh, 1887 14 ILR(Cal) 493, their Lordships of the Privy Council held :

(i) The claim for an account in a partition suit is not a claim for mesne profits. The provisions for mesne profits are applicable to suits for land in which the plaintiff has a specific interest and not a suit for partition where a member of the joint family has no specific interest until the decree.

(ii) A member of the joint Hindu family can claim for an account from other members only after the passing of the preliminary decree and not before that. After the passing of the preliminary decree, the share of a member of the joint Hindu family is specifically ascertained, and, as such, a member can claim for account about the profits realised by the defendants only after the preliminary decree is passed.

This Privy Council decision was followed by a Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Ramaswami Aiyar V/s. Subramania Aiyar, AIR 1923 Mad 147. Later on, the Privy Council decision was also followed in a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Bassavayya V/s. Guravayya, AIR 1951 Mad 938. The Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court was followed by a large number of decisions in Ghanshyam Martha V/s. Brundaban Pradhan, AIR 1977 Ori 154, Satyanarayan Sastrulu V/s. Mallikarjuna Sastruiu, AIR 1960 AP 45, Saraswati Debi V/s. Satya Narayan Gupta, AIR 1977 Cal 99, and Ram Narain Prasad Sah V/s. Ramji Prasad Sah, AIR 1956 Pat 244. This Full Bench decision of the Madraq High Court was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Ajodheya Missir V/s. Nageshwar Prasad, 1963 0 BLJR 297.

4. The facts of the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court (supra) were that the plaintiff did not pray in the plaint for rendition of accounts by the defendants, nor a decree was passed to that effect. In the course of the Proceeding of the final decree, the plaintiff applied for an enquiry into the profits of the properties realised by the defendants during the pendency of the suit. On these facts, the trial Judge allowed the prayer of the plaintiff and the same was upheld by the Full Bench of the Madras High Court. In the Full Bench decision, it has been held that a plaintiff is entitled to apply for an enquiry into the profits of the properties realised by the defendants during the pendency of the suit and before the preparation of the final decree for the reason that every suit of partition is substantially a suit for account of joint family properties on the date of the suit. Further, even if no such prayer is made by the plaintiff in the plaint, nor the preliminary decree mentions about the rendition of the account by the defendants, the plaintiff is entitled to apply for rendition of accounts in the course of the preparation of the final decree for the period between the date of the institution of the suit and the preparation of the final decree. Such an application for enquiry into the profits is covered by Order 20, Rule 18(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code ) and not by Order 20, Rule 12 of the Code.

5. In the present case, the plaintiff applied for an enquiry into the profits realised by the def