JUDGMENT

Henry Richards, C.J. - This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed a considerable amount of property of different descriptions. There were a considerable number of houses, a number of cultivatory holdings situated in different Mauzas and Mahals. There were also a number of defendants who were in occupation of different parts of the property claimed. The principal defendant was Ram Chandra. When I say the principal defendant, I mean that he appears to have been in possession of a greater number of the houses and some of the holdings, The plaintiff's title was that the property belonged to her father one Beni Prasad, that he died leaving a widow Musammat Kousilla, the mother of the plaintiff, that the mother died and that the plaintiff thereupon became entitled to the property.

2. The defences vary considerably by the different defendants. Some of the defendants allege that the property did not belong to Beni Prasad at all and that the property belonged to other persons. Some of the defendants did not even claim through Ram Chandra. Ram Chandra pleaded that he was the adopted son of Beni Prasad, He did not at all admit that all the property belonged to Beni Prasad, on the contrary, he alleged (sea paragraphs 17 and 18 of the written statement) that some of the property never belonged to Beni Prasad.

3. The Court below dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the bringing of the present suit violated the provisions of Order II, Rule 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order II, Rule 2, is as follows: "Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action." Clause 2 provides that "where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of...any portion of his claim he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished." It appears that prior to the institution of the present suit the plaintiff instituted another suit against Ram Chandra and a man called Kidar Nath, in which she claimed possession of a grove and a house. The Court below has held that in this previous suit Musammat Bindo Bibi ought to have claimed all the property she claims in the present suit and not having done so, the present suit id barred by the provisions of the CPC to which I have just referred. The plaintiff has appealed. In the absence of authority I should have been reluctant to hold that the plaintiff is bound by the provisions of Order II, Rule 2, to include in the same suit two separate properties held under separate titles. It seems to me that the keeping of the plaintiff out of possession of two separate properties held under different titles are distinct causes of action" within the meaning of that expression in Order II, Rule 2. There is, however, a Pull Bench decision of this Court, Murti v. Bhola Nath 16 A. 165 (F.B.) :A.W.N. (1894) 65 : 8 Ind. Dec. (N.s.) 106, which goes this length. In that case a creditor had attached mortgagee rights in one properly and proprietary rights in another in execution of a simple money decree. The claimant to the property objected and the objection was allowed. Thereupon the judgment-creditor instituted two suits, one in respect of the mortgagee rights and the other in respect of proprietary rights. The Full Bench held that the second suit was barred by the corresponding rule of the CPC of 1882. It must be borne in mind, however, that both the suits in that case were against the same party. It is strongly urged on behalf of the respondents that the present case cannot be distinguished from the Pull Bench ruling to which I have just referred. It seems to me that there is a dear distinction. Not only were the two suits brought by the present plaintiff in respect of entirely different properties but the only defendant who is common to the two suits was the defendant Ram Chandra Kidar Nath, Ram Chandra's co-defendant in the previous suit, is not a defendant to the present suit and he appears to have no con