JUDGMENT

Arthur Strachey, C.J. - The plaintiff in this case claimed a sum of money in respect of the mesne profits of a zamindari property for the year 1301 Fasli,. that is to say, from the 26th September 1893 to the 14th September 1894. The suit was instituted in June 1896. In defence to the suit it was pleaded that inasmuch as the mesne profits claimed in the suit had been expressly claimed in a previous suit, and had not been allowed in that suit, the claim was barred as res judicata by virtue of Explanation III to Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That plea was overruled by both the lower Courts. It is again raised by the defendant in his Second Appeal to this Court. The only question which we have to decide is whether the Courts ought to have held the suit to be barred by Section 13 of the Code.

2. The former suit was brought by the same plaintiff against the same defendant on the 5th December 1893. In the plaint the plaintiff claimed to recover possession of the same share of zamindari property, and of a dwelling-house. He also claimed mesne profits as follows--first, mesne profits for 1298 to 1300 Fasli both years inclusive; and secondly, future mesne profits that is,