A plaintiff cannot split his cause of action and file multiple suits for the same relief. If a plaintiff fails to claim a relief in a previous suit which he was entitled to claim, he is barred from claiming it in a subsequent suit.

GANGADHARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) - These appeals are filed by the plaintiffs against the common judgment of Venkatrama sastry, J. in Appeal Nos. 209 of 1970, 431 of 1971, 3 of 1972 and Transferred appeal No. 208 of 1974 and they are disposed of by us by a common judgment.

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs filed O. S. No. 28 of 1950 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, eluru, for partition of the suit properties by metes and bounds into two shares and for allotment of one share to them, and for mesne profits. Originally they filed the suit against defendants 1 and 2. The first defendant in his written statement pleaded that the lands situate in Chilakapadu and D. Muppavaram villages where in possession of the tenants and that they were claiming occupancy rights. Thereupon, the plaintiffs impleaded the tenants as defendants 3 to 19 in the suit. During the pendency of the suit the 1st defendant sold the suit properties to the defendants 3 to 52. Consequently the plaintiffs amended the plaint stating that the sales in their favour were subject to the doctrine of lis pendens, that those properties, also had to be partitioned along with the other properties, and that they were entitled for a decree against them also as prayed for. But the plaintiffs did not pay court-fee for recovery of possession of the lands from the tenants.

( 3 ) THE defendants-tenants filed written statements contending that the lands were situate in an estate, that they had acquired occupancy rights and the remedy of the plaintiffs was only to secure compensation.

( 4 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge, eluru, had observed that the plaintiffs had not asked for delivery of possession of the suit properties from the tenants, and they has not paid court-fee in that regard. He, therefore, held that it was not necessary for him to determine the question whether Chilakapadu and d. Muppavaram villages were estates, and whether the defendants had acquired occupancy rights in the lands situate in those villages. He held that the plaintiffs were entitled to their half-share in the suit properties described in the plaint schedules A and B, and the 1st defendant is entitled to the other half a share in the properties described in the plaint A Schedule and defendants 1 and 2 for the other half-share in the properties described in the plaint B schedule. He found that since the lands in the villages of Chilakapadu and D. Muppavaram were admittedly int hep ossession of strangers and not in the possession of the co- owner, the 1st defendant, the plaintiffs were entitled to only to such possession which they could have had as against the 1st defendant. He also held that whether the plaintiffs were entitled to ask for actual division of the properties by metes and bounds would have to be considered separately in the final decree proceedings. Accordingly, he passed a preliminary decree. Questioning that decree, the plaintiffs filed A. S. No 383 of 1956 in this Court. They also filed a petition to amend the plaint claiming possession of the lands from the tenants after evicting them. It was argued in the appeal that the learned Subordinate judge should have decided the question whether they were estate villages and whether the tenants had acquired occupancy rights in the lands. It was also contended that the learned Subordinate judge should have gone into the validity of the various alienations effected in favour of the tenants during the pendency of the suit. The appeal and the petition for amendment of the plaint were heard together. By that date the settlement Officer had issued pattas to some of the tenants and they were filed in this Court. A Division Bench of this court consisting of Umarnaheswaram and Syed Qamar Hasan, JJ. by their judgment dated 20th January, 1961, held that whether the tenants were the lawful ryots or not was a matter to be decided by the Settlement Officer, and the suit as against the tenants was not maintainable after the estate was taken over under the provisions of Madras

Click Here to Read the rest of this document