JUDGMENT : Mohapatra, J. - This is a Plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment dated 19th July, 19M of Sri R.C. Misra, District Judge of Sambalpur, confirming a decision of the Subordinate Judge, arising out of a suit for mesne profits for the years 1940 to 1949. The Plaintiff has assessed the mesne profits at Rs. 4890/.. 2. Nilamoni and Lakhan were two brothers. The present Plaintiff-Appellant Udekar is the son of Lakhan and Defendants 1 to S are the sons of Nilamoni. Lakhan and Udekar filed partition suit No. 16 of 1942 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Sambalpur, for partition and separate possession of their eight annas interest 10 the joint family properties. Nilamoni and his sons, the present Defendants, figured as Defendants In the partition suit. There the defence ran only to the effect that the partition suit was not maintainable as there was a previous partition by metes and 'bounds. The defence contention was upheld by the two lower Courts but was negatived in Second Appeal, their Lordships having found that the parties were only in amicable possession of portions the scheduled lands or the sake of convenience and there had been no actual partition by metes and bounds. Eventually a final decree was passed and the present Plaintiff and his father took delivery of separate possession of the lands allotted to their eight annas interest in the properties scheduled in the decree. Thereafter both the brothers Nilamoni and Lakhan died. The present suit for mesne profits has been brought by Udekar against the Defendants claiming the aforesaid sum of Rs. 4890/- for the year 1940 to 1949. 3. The main defence which prevailed in the Courts below is that the present suit is not maintainable and is barred by the provisions of Order II, Rule 2 and Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. It must be held in this case that it is not the Defendants 1 to 3 who were in sole possession of the joint family properties to the exclusion of the present Plaintiff. It was the very Case of the Plaintiffs in the previous suit that they were in possession of some portions of the joint family properties and the Defendants were in possession separately in respect of others. It was the very Case of the Plaintiffs in the previous suit that they were in possession of some portions of the joint family properties and the Defendants were in possession separately in respect of others. Their Lordships of the High Court In the Second Appeal finally settling the disputes between the parties came to the conclusion that the parties were in separate possession of portions of joint family properties for the sake of convenience and not by way of or in onsequence of a partition by metes and bounds. 5. Here also it has been found as a matter of fact that the Plaintiff was also during the period 1940.49 in possession of some portions of the joint family properties. There is no question of any ouster by any of the co-tenants or co-sharers. There is no suggestion whatsover on behalf of the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was ousted from possessing any portion of the joint family properties. In this view of the matter, the position is absolutely clear that the claim in the present suit cannot be taken to be a claim for mesne profits as defined in Section 2, Clause (12) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the fact remains simple, because the Defendants were in possession of some property in excess of their shares, their possession can never be taken to be wrongful possession. The claim being not strictly for mesne profits, as d fined in Section 2, we shall have to take completely out of consideration in this case that branch of law which governs those cases of rightful owners for recovery of possession as against trespassers and also for mesne profits, past and future. 6. This is a claim for rents and profits as between co-sharers and co-tenants who were members of a joint family at one time and there has been severance of interest indeed prior to the period for which the Plaintiff has claimed. In my view the claim is in the nature of accounts in respect of rents and profits from out of the properties which were the subject matter of the previous suit and in respect of which the Plaintiffs in the previous suit had claimed partition. In my view the claim is in the nature of accounts in respect of rents and profits from out of the properties which were the subject matter of the previous suit and in respect of which the Plaintiffs in the previous suit had claimed partition. It is indisputable, the scope of partition suit, and particularly in the final decree stage, was not only to completely apportion the shares of the properties involved in the suit and allot separate portions to each of the sharers, but also, if the parties so desire, to finally adjust all rights and equities arising out of the same properties between the parties to the suit. This Includes the a rents and profits arising out of the properties which were the subject matter of the suit for partition. This must be by way of accounting as in the present case it is found that the Plaintiff was in possession of some portions of the joint properties required to be partitioned. Not only the Defendants, who are alleged to be In possession in excess of their shares, are to render accounts of the rents and profits appropriated by them after the severance of interest, but it is equally incumbent upon the Plaintiff to account for the rents and profits in respect of the properties In his possession j and the matter has got to be adjusted after taking accounts in respect of properties in possession of respective parties. The final result of the dues of the parties has got to be adjusted and embodied in the final decree of the partition suit. The suit for partition not only means one for partitioning the properties alone but also of the profits and emoluments arising out of the said properties when such partition is permissible. When this is the scope of a suit for partition, a separate suit for mesne profits, which more accurately and appropriately should be described as a suit for accounts, cannot lie and should be held as not maintainable as hit by the mischief of the provisions of Section 11, Expl. IV, Code of Civil Procedure. When this is the scope of a suit for partition, a separate suit for mesne profits, which more accurately and appropriately should be described as a suit for accounts, cannot lie and should be held as not maintainable as hit by the mischief of the provisions of Section 11, Expl. IV, Code of Civil Procedure. In my view, the prayer for such accounts and final adjustment of equities not only might have been prayed for in the previous partition suit before the final decree was passed, but the Plaintiff should have so claimed ; and I will go further to observe that it Was incumbent for him to do so. This is exactly based upon the principle underlying the provisions of Section 11, that is, finally of judgment and avoiding multiplicity of suits. 7. Moreover, as it appears to me, from the above analysis of the cause of action for a suit for partition that it is not merely one for partitioning the properties bot also for benefits arising out of the same, such a suit is barred under Order II, Rule 2. 1 may observe In this connexion that in the present suit, as framed by the Plaintiff does not volunteer that accounts should also be taken in respect of the properties in his possession, and the frame of the suit is far from being one for accounts. It is purely a suit for mesne profits as if it were against mere trespassers which is manifestly not the position. 8. I may further note in this connexion that it has been consistently held by several high authorities that the prayer for complete adjustment of dues between the parties, accruing during the pendency of the suit or proceedings arising out of the partition suit, can be made even after the preliminary decree and at the final decree stage j but nevertheless no separate suit should lie. I should first of all refer in this connexion to a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court, reported in Babburu Basavayya and Others Vs. Babburu Guravayya and Another. I should first of all refer in this connexion to a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court, reported in Babburu Basavayya and Others Vs. Babburu Guravayya and Another. Their Lordships, after reviewing quite a number of decisions, decided that Order XX, Rule 12 relates to mesne profits in the sense 10 which that expression is defined in Section 2, Clause (12) of the Code the suit for mesne profits as between co-sharers or co-parceners for partition an for mesne profits cannot be taken to be a suit for mesne profits as defined in the CPC and in a suit for partition the Court has not only to divide the common properties but has also to adjust the equities arising between the parties out of their relation to the common properties. There are other matters in addition to the ascertainment of shares of the parties which have to be considered and decided before an equitable final partition can be effected. So according to their Lordships' view, even after passing of preliminary decree It is open to the Court to give proper direction regarding all or any of these matters either suo motu or on the application of the parties. In cases for partition as between co-sharers or co-parceners, the proper remedy is not to sue for mesne profits as the possession of any of the parties was not wrongful, but the only remedy is to have the accounts settled. From the date of severence of status the coparceners become tenants-in-common and their suit should also be not for partition of the joint properties but may also be for accounts of the profits appropriated by different co-sharers. This decision Was followed in a very recent case of the Patna High Court reported in Ram Narain Prasad Sah Vs. Ramji Prasad Sah and Others. This decision Was followed in a very recent case of the Patna High Court reported in Ram Narain Prasad Sah Vs. Ramji Prasad Sah and Others. Their Lordships in interpreting the principles laid down by the Full Bench of the Madras High Court observed that a suit for partition by a member of a joint Hindu family is substantially a suit for account of the joint family from the date of the suit as wen as of the profits received by the manager since that date, so that the profits should also be divided and his proper share be given to him, Such a claim of a member of a joint Hindu family suing for partition and for his share of the profits accruing from the lands pending the suit is not, properly speaking, a claim for mesne profits, and Order 20, Rule 12 has no application to such a case. Their Lordships also were of the opinion that even at the final decree stage it is open for the parties to get the equities completely adjusted and settled which will be embodied in the final decree. 9. But more directly is a case which was decided by a Bench of the Patna High Court reported In Nandakishore v. Paremeshwar Prasad AIR 1935 Pat. 80. The judgment was delivered by Courtney Terrel, C.J. and was agreed to by Agawala,J. A co-parcener suing for partition i entitled to have the co-parcenary divided as at the date of the suit and the person in possession must account for the share of the profits of the properties allotted from the date as they came into his hands to the extent that he is not entitled to waste or make away with the co-parcenary property between that date and the date of the final partition, although he is in rightful possession thereof, and his duty to take charge of the property continues until the actual delivery of possession of the takhta is allotted. To this extent only is he liable to account for profits. Such accounting is a matter to be considered in the partition suit and not by a separate suit. Their Lordships therefore gave a definite pronouncement that this final adjustment of equities ought to be made in the partition suit itself and not in a separate suit. To this extent only is he liable to account for profits. Such accounting is a matter to be considered in the partition suit and not by a separate suit. Their Lordships therefore gave a definite pronouncement that this final adjustment of equities ought to be made in the partition suit itself and not in a separate suit. Indeed their Lordships did not fully analyse the principle underlying Order 2, Rule 2 or Explanation IV to Section 11 of the CPC but nevertheless, as I have shown above, the decision is completely in accord with the above analysis of the two provisions. 10. Mr. M. Mohanty, appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff-Appellant, strongly relies upon a decision of the Bombay High Court, reported in Rama Kallappa Pujari Vs. Saidappa Sidrama Pujari. The principal judgment was delivered by Beaumont, C J. and Wadia, J. gave a separate note also. The decision in a way supports the case of Mr. Mohanty and the facts also are similar. Their Lordships decided that a claim for mesne profits does not arise on the same cause of action as a claim for possession of the land. Where a Plaintiff sues for partition and possession with no prayer for mesne profits, a subsequent suit for future mesne profits is not barred by Order 2, Rule 2. With highest respect for the views of one of the great Judges of India, that is Beaumont, C- J., I must observe that for the aforesaid reasons I will follow the view of the Bench decision of the Patna High court reported in A. I. R. 1935 Pat. 80. I may, however, add that their Lordships in the Bombay case confined their observation only to the provisions of Order 2, Rule 2 and had completely overlooked the remarkable distinctions between cases of possession as against a mere trespasser and cases of partition between co-parceners or co-sharers. Their Lordships did not take notice of the position that in the former case the possession is unlawful, but in the latter case the possession is not unlawful and therefore it is not a suit for mesne profits but it is a suit for accounts and equitable adjustment of the rights arising out of the properties which were sought to be partitioned and therefore they come within the scope of the suit for partition and not as the subject matter of a separate suit. Their Lordships also did not consider Expl. IV to Section 11 which more particularly applies in the present case. As I have mentioned above the Plaintiff could and should have prayed for the same relief there in the previous suit for partition. It is also significant to note, as I have already mentioned, the present suit, as framed, can never be construed as a suit for accounts at an. 11. In the result, therefore, the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are confirmed and the Plaintiff's appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed