Judgment.- This Second Appeal is filed by the defendants as against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Tenali in A.S. No. 41 of 1949 decreeing the plaintiff’s suit for recovery of compensation from the defendants in respect of a contract for sale, dated 20th January, 1943. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 40 of 1946 on the file of the District Munsif, Repalle, for specific performance of the agreement of sale or in the alternative for recovery of damages. The suit was decreed. The present suit was instituted on 4th November, 1947, for recovery of mesne profits from the suit land. An objection was raised that mesne profits were not payable. The District Munsif in the first instance decreed the suit. There was an appeal A.S. No. 80 of 1948, filed before the Subordinate Judge, Tenali. The Subordinate Judge held that having regard to the provisions of section 55 (4) of the Transfer of Property Act, the seller was entitled to the rents and profits of the property till the ownership passed to the buyer, and that the suit for recovery of mesne profits was not maintainable. He also held that viewed as a suit for recovery of damages, Order 2, rule 2 would apply and the suit would also fail on that ground. But for no proper reason, he permitted the plaintiff to amend the plaint basing it as one for damages for breach of contract and remanded the suit to the trial Court. On the findings recorded by him in paragraph 9 he ought to have allowed the appeal and given a quietus to the proceedings. On remand, the District Munsif held that the suit was hit at by the provisions of Order 2, rule 2, Civil Procedure Code and dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. On appeal the Subordinate Judge reversed the judgment and decree of the District Munsif and decreed the suit for Rs. 71-8-0. The defendants have consequently preferred the Second Appeal. The short question for decision in the Second Appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim mesne profits. Section 55(4) of the Transfer of Property Act is quite clear that the seller is entitled to the rents and profits of the property till the ownership thereof passes to the buyer. So until the conveyance was executed in favour of the plaintiff he was not entitled to the rents and profits. Section 55(4) of the Transfer of Property Act is quite clear that the seller is entitled to the rents and profits of the property till the ownership thereof passes to the buyer. So until the conveyance was executed in favour of the plaintiff he was not entitled to the rents and profits. So the District Munsif was quite right in holding that the suit for recovery of mesne profits was not maintainable. The decision in Subbaroyar v. Kottayya Goundan1 is a clear authority in support of that proposition. Moreover, the plaintiff did not prefer an appeal as against the order of remand and it is not open to him to contend that he is entitled to recover mesne profits. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the plaintiff, not having prayed for recovery of damages in the suit for specific performance, he is barred from clajming that relief under Order 2, rule 2, Civil Procedure Code. Order 2, rule 2, sub-clause(1) provides that: “Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action.” Clause 3 provides that: “A person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs.” Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act enacts that: “Any person suing for the specific performance of a contract may also ask for compensation for its breach either in addition to, or in substitution for, such performance.” The plaintiff herein only prayed for compensation for the breach of the contract in substitution for such performance. He did not seek compensation in addition to specific performance. So no compensation was awarded in the prior suit. The learned advocate for the respondent contends that the cause of action for recovery of compensation does not arise on the contract or agreement to sell but only after specific performance was decreed in his favour. I do not agree. The compensation which the plaintiff is seeking in the present action is based only on the agreement of sale and on his not being put in possession of the property under the contract of sale. I do not agree. The compensation which the plaintiff is seeking in the present action is based only on the agreement of sale and on his not being put in possession of the property under the contract of sale. The cause of action being the agreement of sale and not the decree for specific performance, I am clearly of opinion that the provisions of Order 2, rule 2, apply and that the suit is consequently not maintainable. Reference was made to the decision in Krishnammal v. Soundararaja Aiyar1, in support of the proposition that after obtaining a decree for specific performance it was open to file a suit for recovery of possession. In Narayana Kavirayan v.Kandasami Gounden2, Mr. Justice Shephard and Mr. Justice Boddam held that the provisions of Order 2, rule 2 would apply and that a suit for recovery of possession would not lie unless possession was prayed for in the suit for specific performance. In Krishnammal v.Soundararaja Aiyar1, a different view was taken by Sankaran Nair and Tyabji, JJ. It is unnecessary for me to go into the question which view is correct. Even assuming that the decision in Krishnammal v. Soundararaja Aiyar1 is right and that the execution of the conveyance is a fresh cause of action entitling the plaintiff to sue for recovery of possession, it does not follow that a suit for com-pensation in respect of the agreement of sale may be filed later. Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act is quite clear that the additional prayer as to compensation ought to be asked for, in the suit for specific performance. The decisions in Naba-kumar Hazra v. Radha Shyam Mahesh3 and Ramiah v. Thathiah4, have really no bearing on this question. The suit for recovery of mesne profits no doubt stands on a different footing. A suit for recovery of possession of the property may be filed in the first instance and a suit for recovery of mesne profits may be filed at a later stage and the provisions of Order 2, rule 2 may not apply as pointed out by Mr. Justice Venkataramana Rao in Ramiah v. Thathaih4. If the plaintiff claims mesne profits he is barred under the provisions of section 55 (4) of the Transfer of Property Act. If he claims it as compensation arising out of the contract of sale, the provisions of Order 2, rule 3 clearly apply. Justice Venkataramana Rao in Ramiah v. Thathaih4. If the plaintiff claims mesne profits he is barred under the provisions of section 55 (4) of the Transfer of Property Act. If he claims it as compensation arising out of the contract of sale, the provisions of Order 2, rule 3 clearly apply. I, therefore, set aside the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Tenali and restore the decree of the District Munsif and dismiss the plaintiff’s suit with costs throughout. In the view taken by me it is unnecessary to go into the question of limitation or as to the nature of the decree that might be passed as against the second defendant, the donee from the first defendant after the contract of sale. No leave. D.L.N. -------- Appeal allowed.