1. Plaintiff in O.S.No.171 of 1985, who lost in both the Courts below have come upto with this second appeal, challenging the correctness of the judgments of both the Courts.

.2. Between the same parties, there was another suit as O.S.No. 212 of 1982, for declaration of title and consequential injunction. In that property, there were few trees which were cut and removed by the defendant. That suit was decreed and it was confirmed in appeal. By the time of institution of this suit, it was said that a second appeal is pending before this Court. Even at the time of filing the earlier suit, some of the trees were cut and removed by the defendants. Damages was not claimed, and plaintiff in that case reserved his right to file a suit separately, claiming the same.

3. After decree, the present suit was filed to recover the damages to the extent of Rs. 6,000. Defendant admitted that he cut and removed the trees. But the only point he urged before Court below was that the suit is barred under Or. 2, R.2, C.P.C. According to the defendant, the claim for damages is also based on the same cause of action, and the second suit for the said purpose is not maintainable. The claim for