K.S. Menon, J.

1. The suit is to recover possession of the plaint lands with past and future mesne profits. It is alleged that that property was purchased in Court auction by one Ramaswarai Chettiar in 1923, that the said Ramaswami Chettiar was merely a benamidar for Chidambaram Chettiar, the father of the plaintiff, that on the defendants obstructing the said Ramaswami Chettiar in taking possession" of the property, the latter filed O.S. No. 88 of 1925 on the file of the District Munsiff of Tiruthuraipundi, that as he died during the pendency of the suit and no legal representative of his was brought on record the suit abated and that in spite of it the plaintiffs, being the benaficial owners, are entitled to maintain the suit. The defendants contended that the suit is barred by Order 22, Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, as the cause of action is the same as that in O.S. No. 88 of 1925. That plea of the defendants was upheld by both the lower Courts; hence this second appeal, by the plaintiffs.

2. The only question for decision is whether the suit is barred by Order 22, Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is not disputed that the cause of action in this suit is the sam