JUDGMENT S.L. Jain, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 16-5-1997, passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Rewa in Civil Suit No. 14-B/1991, whereby suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of mesne profit has been decreed, the appellants/defendants have filed this appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (henceforth, the 'C.P.C.'). 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal pithily narrated are thus :- i. Plaintiff/respondent filed a suit against the appellants/defendants for possession of land bearing Khasra No. 559 area 1.94 acres and Khasra No. 106 area 0.45 decimals situated at Village Dubgava, Teh. Sirmaur, District Rewa. The relief for mesne profit was also claimed. The suit was decreed by the trial Court so far as it related to recovery of possession. However, the suit for recovery of mesne profit prior to the filing of the suit was dismissed. The appellant filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court which was registered as appeal No. 18-A/78. The appeal was dismissed. Appellant filed second appeal before the High Court which also faced dismissal. ii. In the second appeal it has been held that the present appellants were bound to deliver the possession of the land to Ram Ratan (present respondent). iii. Thereafter, plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for mesne profit against the appellants alleging that despite the judgment in second appeal which was decided on 23-3-1987, the possession of the land was delivered to the respondent on 6-1-1990 and the appellants were in wrongful possession of the said land and therefore, he is entitled to the mesne profit @ Rs. 7,000.00 per year for the period of three years prior to the filing of the suit. iv. Appellants resisted the claim alleging that earlier the suit for mesne profit was dismissed; therefore, the present suit is barred by section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. The trial Court framed a preliminary issue as to whether the suit is barred by principle of res judicata and vide order dated 11-10-1996, recorded a finding that the suit is not barred by principle of res judicata because the issue involved in the earlier suit was different from the one raised in the present suit. Earlier the mesne profit was claimed for the period prior to the filing of the suit. Earlier the mesne profit was claimed for the period prior to the filing of the suit. In the present suit the mesne profit has been claimed for different period i.e. from the date of the decision in the second appeal till the date of recovery of possession. After the decision of the preliminary issue, evidence was recorded on other issues. v. On the basis of the evidence, the trial Court held that the plaintiff/respondent is entitled to mesne profit for three years @ Rs. 5,000.00/- a year. 3. I have heard Shri Kuldeep Singh, Learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri Umesh Shrivastava, counsel for the respondent. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the matter directly and substantially in issue in the present suit has been directly and substantially in issue in the former suit between the same parties in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit and has been heard and finally decided by such Court, therefore, the present suit is barred by principles of res judicata. The appellants cannot be vexed twice for the same cause. 5. The contention is not acceptable. Earlier suit was for the mesne profit for the period prior to the filing of the earlier suit. In the present suit the cause of action is different. The present suit has been filed after the dismissal of the Second Appeal. A separate suit for the mesne profit in respect of income received by the defendant subsequent to the institution of the prior suit for possession is not barred by res judicata. (See AIR 1963 Mad 402 (V-50), Rasammal vs. K. Subbaroya Goundar and others). Once the question of issue in two suits is found to be different, the principles of res judicata will not apply. If the matter in issue in the subsequent suit was not in issue at all in the former suit, there is no question of res judicata. Therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court in this regard cannot be interfered with. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellants next contended that the mesne profit assessed by the trial Court is on the higher side. In the earlier suit, the mesne profit was claimed @ Rs. 378/- per year, therefore, the trial Court could not have awarded the mesne profit at a rate higher than Rs. 378/- a year. 7. This contention also cannot be countenanced. In the earlier suit, the mesne profit was claimed @ Rs. 378/- per year, therefore, the trial Court could not have awarded the mesne profit at a rate higher than Rs. 378/- a year. 7. This contention also cannot be countenanced. The trial Court has discussed the evidence of the plaintiffs/respondents in detail. The evidence of the owner of neighbouring field was also given in rebuttal. It is a known fact that in the recent few years, the production in agriculture has increased. The land in dispute is an irrigated land. Every year two crops were obtained or could have been obtained from the land. The defendant who actually cultivated the land was the best person to speak about the profits earned by him. Mesne profits of property are those profits which a person receives by wrongful possession of such property or would have received by due diligence. Here it is not the case of the defendant that any improvement was made by him in the land. Where the land was irrigated and two crops could have been obtained, the assessment of mesne profit by the trial Court cannot be said to be unreasonable. 8. The trial Court has analyzed the factual material properly. The finding of the trial Court based on proper appreciation of evidence cannot be lightly brushed aside by the appellate Court. An appellate Court should always bear in mind that if the finding of the trial Court is reasonably sustainable on evidence on record, it should not be interfered with normally except for very cogent reasons. In the circumstance of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere with the conclusion recorded by the trial Court. 9. In view of above, the appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. Hence it is dismissed. 10. The appellants shall bear their costs and also the costs of the respondent throughout. Counsel's fees Rs. 750/- if certified.