(1.) JACKSON , A.J.C. 1. This appeal arises from a suit for possession of a half share of Survey No. 71 of Mouza Jahagirpur in the Malkapur Taluq. The field belonged to one Vinayakrao who died about 1896. He left a widow Mt. Umabai and three daughters, Mt. Yamubai, Yeshodabai (defendant 2) and the plaintiff's mother Mt. Anubai alias Ambai. On the death of Vinayakrao his widow succeeded to the property and she sold the field to defendant 1 by two registered sale deeds, dated 14th April 1898 and 19th January 1900. One of her daughters predeceased Mt. Umabai and when the latter died in 1913 her heirs were the mother of the of the plaintiff and Mt. Yashodabai, defendant 2. In Civil Suit No. 74 of 1921 in the Court of the Munsif, Malkapur, Yashodabai sued for possession of one half of the field. The present plaintiff, who was then a minor, did not join in the suit and was made a co-defendant with defendant 1 in the present ease. The latter pleaded that the sales were for legal necessity and were binding on the reversioners, but his plea was unsuccessful and Yashodabai's claim was decreed. The present plaintiff now sues for the other half share in the field and it has been held that the finding in the previous suit operates as res judicata and that defendant 1 cannot now plead legal necessity for the sales. This finding is contested on the ground that there was no controversy between the two defendants in Civil Suit No. 74 of 1921. Khair Muhammad v. Omar Din A.I.R. 1925 Lah. 421, which has been cited on behalf of the appellant, does not relate to a question of res judicata arising between co-defendants. In Muhammad Ahmad v. Zahur Ahmad A.I.R. 1922 All. 19, which has been followed in Laxman v. Janoo A.I.R. 1922 All. 19 it has been held that a decision as between co-defendants cannot be res judicata under the provisions of Section 11, Civil P.C., unless it was necessary to decide an issue between them in order to grant relief to the plaintiff. It is urged that the present plaintiff was not a contesting defendant in Civil Suit No. 74 of 1921 as she admitted Yashodabai's claim; but that does not alter the fact that there was an issue between her and defendant 1, which it was necessary to decide in order to grant relief to the plaintiff, that issue being whether the sales were binding on the reversioners--an issue in which the present plaintiff was equally interested with Yashodabai and which she raised by admitting Yashodabai's claim. This appears to be the view taken in Haladhur Das v. Nagendra Nath ; and my decision is that the finding is correct, that the decision in Civil Suit No. 74 of 1921 operates as res judicata.
(2.) IT is next argued that the present suit is barred under Order 2, Rule 2, because in Civil Suit No. 78 of 1923 the present plaintiff, in suing to obtain possession of A house sold to defendant 1 by Umabai, tailed to include her claim for a half share in the field. It is argued that the cause of action is the same for the two suits, namely, the death of the plaintiff's mother. That, however, merely shows the date on which the cause of action arose and is not in itself the cause of action. The cause of action is made up of all the facts which entitle the plaintiff to sue and those facts include in each of the two cases I am considering the sales by Umabai to defendant 1. These sales were different and the causes of action in which they are included must also necessarily be different. In Pittapur Raja v. Suriya Rau [1885] 8 Mad. 520 it was held that the causes of action were different in two suits in which the plaintiff first sued for possession of an estate in land, of which he had been wrongfully dispossessed by the defendant, and afterwards sued for his share of personal property, being entitled to both under a will. It was said: It is not the case of one conversion of several things. There the act of conversion of the several things is one cause of action, and you cannot bring an action for the conversion of one of the things and a separate action for the conversion of another. The conversion of the whole is one claim and one cause of action.