JUDGMENT B. Dayal, J. - On the facts of this case the question as posed does not appear to be apt. The present plaintiff Bishambhar Das filed a suit No. 384 of 1948 for the recovery of mesne profits for the period, November, 1945 to November, 1948 at Rs. 40/-per month claiming Rs. 1,600/- as mesne profits. The suit was contested by the defendant inter alia upon the ground that the plaintiff was not the owner of the property and in any case the mesne profits claimed were excessive. Subsequently the plaintiff filed another suit No. 309 of 1950 for mesne profits of a subsequent period again claiming mesne profits at Rs. 40/- per month. The trial court decreed the first suit for Rs. 240/- as mesne profits only on 9th March, 1952. But before this it was decided the second suit No. 109 of 1950 had been decided by the Munsif on the 19th of November 1951 decreeing the suit at Rs. 40/- per month. This decision of the Munsif in the second suit was not appealed against and became final, he plaintiff filed an appeal against the decision of the 1948 suit before the District Judge which was heard by the 1st Civil Judge, Saharanpur and the contention raised by learned counsel before the appellate court was that one suit having been decided for mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month the decision had become res judicata and this suit should also have been decided by the Munsif at the same rate. The learned Judge, who decided the case in the court below, held that the suit which had been decreed related to a period subsequent to the period involved in the appeal before him and that decision, therefore, could not be res judicata and upon the evidence before him he accepted the decision of the trial court that the proper mesne profits would be at s. 6/- per month and consequently dismissed the appeal. Against that decision this second appeal was filed and one of the questions raised in the second appeal was that the courts were bound in this suit to decree mesne profits at Rs. 10/- per month and the decision of the Munsif dated 19th of November 1951 operated as res judicata so far as the rate of mesne profits was concerned. 10/- per month and the decision of the Munsif dated 19th of November 1951 operated as res judicata so far as the rate of mesne profits was concerned. In the question, as stated above, it has been posed whether decision in a former suit would be res judicata, upon the question of mesne profit in a subsequent suit between the same parties. In the present case res judicata is being pleaded in an earlier suit and not in a subsequent suit but we will answer the question as framed. 2. Mesne profits of any particular property do not depend either on the contract or upon any one particular factor. They depend upon varied circumstances, the condition of the property at a particular time, the surrounding circumstances during the period for which mesne profits are assessed and the market conditions during that period and other circumstances which are not within the control of any of the parties. Thus the amount of mesne profits which can be decreed for a particular period entirely depend upon proof of circumstances prevailing over that period and, therefore, the decision in one suit relating to the amount of mesne profits payable for a particular period can never operate as res judicata for the rate of mesne profits payable during another period which was not in question in that suit. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon certain cases which may now be considered. The first case relied upon by learned counsel was a case of this Court reported in Shib Singh v. Gaura, A.I.R. 1945 Alld. 76. That was a decision by a learned single Judge of this Court and the question for consideration in that case was whether question of ownership of property raised and decided in the previous suit was barred by principle of res judicata in a subsequent suit. On the very face of it this decision has no application to the facts of the present case, where the question now is with regard to the amount of mesne profit which can be decreed for the period in suit, Such a question was not in issue in that case. However, this decision is relied upon by learned counsel merely to show that the decision of a learned single Judge in Tayyab Hasan v. Saghir Hasan, AIR 1939 Allahabad 52. was not correct. However, this decision is relied upon by learned counsel merely to show that the decision of a learned single Judge in Tayyab Hasan v. Saghir Hasan, AIR 1939 Allahabad 52. was not correct. This was a case decided by a learned single Judge on the bar of Order 2 Rule 2. The facts of that case were that a suit had been filed earlier for mesne profits, which had been decreed. Then a subsequent suit was filed for mesne profits and possession and it was held that in the earlier suit the plaintiff had failed to claim possession and, therefore, he was barred to claim possession in a subsequent suit and since he was barred from claiming possession was also barred from claiming mesne profits. The case was, therefore, decided on a different question and the question of applying principle of res judicata to the amount of mesne profits which could be decreed did not arise. 3. The learned counsel next referred to a case of the Madras High Court in Modin v. Puravil, A.I.R. 1934 Mad. 563 In this case the question in controversy was the amount of rent and not the amount of mesne profits which could be decreed. Since the amount of rent payable depends upon a contract between the parties and for any two periods for which two suits may be filed the rent would be payable under the same contract, therefore, decision in one suit that the contract between the parties was to pay rent at a particular rate would naturally be res judicata if the same question is raised in another suit. This decision, therefore, does not apply to the facts of this case. To the same effect is the case of Mahabir Singh v. Tirbhawan Bahadur, A.I.R. 1941 Oudh 259. In this case also the rate of rent was questioned which is a matter of contract between the parties and the same contract has to be interpreted in the subsequent suit. 4. No case has been cited before us showing that if mesne profits are decreed in one suit at a particular rate the court would be bound to decree mesne profits in a subsequent suit at the same rate. 4. No case has been cited before us showing that if mesne profits are decreed in one suit at a particular rate the court would be bound to decree mesne profits in a subsequent suit at the same rate. We, therefore, see no force in this contention and our answer to the question is:- "A decree in a suit awarding mesne profits upto the date of the suit cannot be res judicata upon the question of mesne profits for another period in a subsequent suit between the same parties." 5. Let the papers be returned to the learned single Judge with the above answer.