RAMALINGA CHETTIAR Vs. PAPATHI AMMAL ALIAS SAMPOORANAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the defendant before the trial Court. One Venkatachala, Ramasami and Arunachala are brothers. THEy divided their properties under the original of Ex. A5 dated 24.6.1925. In that partition an extent of A.C. 2.13 in S. No. 20/3 was allotted to Venkatachala. Ramasamy was given A.C. 3.86 in S. No. 26. THE respondents plaintiffs 1 and 2 claim to have purchased the suit property A.C. 2.13 in S. No. 20/3 under three sale deeds from Venkatachala. According to then the appellant filed a suit in O.S. No. 659 of 1964 in respect of A.C. 2.86 in S. No. 26 and A.C.O. 13 in S. No. 20/3 with a well against the first plaintiff obtained an order of ad-interim injunction and trespassed into this suit item on the strength of that injunction. THEy also filed a counter suit in O.S. No. 267 of 1965 in respect of the well in S. No. 20/3 and both the cases were pending. THE respondents instituted O.S. No. 733 of 1970 out of which this appeal arises for declaration and possession before the District Munsif of Vellore in respect of A.C. 2.13 in S. No. 20/3. THE property description in the plaint in O.S. No. 733 of 1970 expressly recites that since the well in S. No. 20/3 is the subject matter of litigation in O.S. No. 659 of 1964 and O.S. No. 267 of 1965, the same has not been impleaded in this suit.

(2.) THE appellant resisted the suit contending that the partition in respect of the suit land under the original of Ex. A5 dated 24.6.1925 was not acted upon. By a subsequent family arrangement, Venkatachala gave away this S. No. 20/3 to Ramasamy, in view of the fact that Ramasamy was not given any share in the family house. Ramasamy who was an enjoyment of this land died in 1947 leaving behind his widow Seethammal and his two sons Subramani and Murugappa and three daughters. THE widow and sons continued to enjoy this land and prescribed title to the same by adverse possession. Hence the sons of Venkatachala had no title to convey under the three sale deeds referred to above in favour of the plaintiffs. THE appellant has purchased the well in suit S. No. 20/3 from Seethammal and other heirs of Ramasamy. In any event, the present action is barred under O. 2, R. 2 of Civil Procedure Code in view of the suit in O.S. No. 267 of 1965.

(3.) NOW let us proceed to examine the contention of the appellant on the principles enunciated in the above said decisions. Be it noted that both O.S. Nos. 659 of 1964 and 267 of 1965 were pending trial when the present suit O.S. No. 733 of 1970 came to be filed in the Court of District Munsif of Vellore. The appellant herein filed O.S. No. 659 of 1964 for declaration of his title to the entirely of A.C. 2.86 in S. No. 26 and 13 cents in S. No. 20/3 and for consequential injunction against the first respondent herein on the basis of the sale deed dated 30.1.1964 from Seethammal. Subsequently, the first respondent herein in his turn filed the suit in O.S. No. 167 of 1965 for declaration that the well in S. No. 20/3 belongs to him and his son and for a consequential injunction restraining the Electricity Board and the appellant from giving service connection to the Electric Motor in the well. The present suit is one for declaration and recovery of possession in respect of the entire extent of A.C. 2.13 in S. No. 20/3 by the respondents from the appellant. The suit has been instituted on the ground that under the guise of the injunction order in O.S. No. 659 of 1964 the respondent has transposed into the entire subject matter of the suit including the well therein and is in unlawful possession of the same from the end of 1964. Whereas the provocation for the institution of O.S. No. 267 of 1965 was the attempt by the appellant to obtain service connection to the Electric Motor in the well in S. No. 20/3 after obtaining an ownership certificate from the Village Officers and the apprehension in the mind of the first respondent that this act on the part of the appellant has cast a cloud on his title to the well and it would affect the prospects of his defence in O S. No. 659 of 1964. And as it has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, his claim in O.S. No. 267 of 1965 is not based on trespass. While the cause of action for the present suit is the trespass committed by the appellant in 1964 and his successful keeping respondents out of possession, the cause of action for the suit in O.S. No. 267 of 1965 is the attempt on the part of the appellant to get electricity service connection to the well in S. No. 20/3. So there could be no doubt that both the suits are not based on the same cause of action. The action which gave occasion for and farmed the foundation for the earlier suit is different from that of the present suit. It cannot be said that in O.S. No. 267 of 1965 the first respondent herein was in a position to ask for larger and wider relief and he has omitted to do so. The claim in the present suit is founded upon a cause of action which was distinct from that which was the foundation for the former suit. The evidence to support the two claims is different, and they are not identical in substance. What motivated the 1st plaintiff to institute O.S. No. 267 of 1965 was the steps taken by the respondent to obtain service connection to the well in S. No. 20/3. On the other hand this suit was filed because of this trespass committed by this respondent in the entire extent of S. No. 20/3. O. 2, R. 2, C.P.C. does not require that when a transaction gives rise to several causes of action, the plaintiff must combine all the causes of action in one suit. The requirement of the rule is that when there is a cause of action, the plaintiff cannot split it into parts and claim reliefs in parts by several actions.