JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J.:— The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by the respondent to have his title declared in respect of different items of property and for a further declaration that two sale-deeds, executed by the first defendant in favour of defendants numbers 2 and 3, in respect of different portions of the said property, are void as against the plaintiff. In the prayer in the plaint the cancellation of the two deeds is sought, but in reality what the plaintiff seeks is a declaration of his own title and of the absence of title in defendant number 1. The suit was defended among other grounds on the plea that it was bad for misjoinder of causes of action. This contention prevailed in the Court of first instance which dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court has set aside the order of the Court of first instance holding that as different causes of action alleged by the plaintiff have been joined against the same defendants, there has been no violation of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. That Court has remanded the case to the Court of first instance. From this order of remand the present appeal has been brought. 2. It is contended that the suit offends against the provisions of section 44 of the Code. That section is partly copied from an English Rule of Court and is not happily worded but it has been held that it only prohibits the joinder with a suit for recovery of immovable property, or to obtain a declaration of title to immovable property, of a cause of action of a different nature. See Chidambar v. Ramasami, [1882] I.L.R., 5 Mad., 161 which was approved by this Court in Ambika Dat v. Bam Udit, [1895] I.L.R., 17 All., 274. and Raghubar Dayal v. Jwala Singh, [1903] I.L.R., 25 All., 229.. The present suit is a suit to obtain a declaration of title to immovable property. Both the causes of action which are said to have been wrongly joined are causes of action relating to immovable property and not causes of action of a different nature from that relating to immovable property. Under such circumstances section 44 does not apply. On the contrary section 45 warrants the union of such causes of action against the same defendants jointly. Under such circumstances section 44 does not apply. On the contrary section 45 warrants the union of such causes of action against the same defendants jointly. We accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs including fees on the higher scale.