The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for complete identity of cause of action to establish the bar under O. II, R. 2, C. P. C.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dt. 3-11-1976 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge, Kolar, in R. A. No. 103/1972 confirming the decree dt. 24-6-1972 passed by the Munsiff, Chintamani in O. S. No. 7/1971. Thus the plaintiff is the appellant and the respondents are the defendants. The parties in this judgment will be referred to with reference to the position they occupied in the trial Court

( 2 ) THE suit properties are the agricultural lands bearing S. No. 195/1, measuring 2 acres 15 guntas and S. No. 109/3, measuring 2 acres 4 guntas, situated in Kothanur village, Siddlaghatta Taluk, Kolar District.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff claims to have purchased the suit properties from the first defendant under a registered sale deed dt. 12-1-1950. He has filed the present suit for the following reliefs :" (A) To declare that he is the owner of one-sixth share in the suit schedule properties. (b) For partition of the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds into six shares and the possession of one-sixth share to the plaintiff. (c) For a decree for Rs. 75/- being the past mesne profits against the defendants. (d) For enquiry into future mesne profits under O. 20, R. 12, C. P. C. from the date of suit to the date of delivery of possession. (e) For Court costs, current interest and such other reliefs as the Court deems fit to grant. "

( 4 ) THE case of the plaintiff is that pursuant to the sale, he was put in possession of the suit properties and as defendants 2 to 6 tried to interfere with his possession, he filed O. S. No. 169/1950-51 in the Court of the Munsiff, Chikkaballapur, for permanent injunction. Subsequently, the Suit came to be amended and a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property was also sought. In that suit was held by the trial Court that the in that suit, who is first defendant in the present suit. But the suit was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession of the suit properties. There an appeal preferred against the decree in O. S. No. 169/1950-51, in R. A. No. 27/52-53 and in that the decree passed in Court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 2. Thereafter the plaintiff filed an other suit in O. S. No. 299/1955 for a declaration of his title to the suit properties and for possession of the same from present defendants. The Vendor of the plaintiff was also a party to that suit as defendant 1. The cause of action pleaded in that suit as may be gathered from the judgment in R. A. NO. 269/56 produced as Ex. D-7 which arose out of the decree passed in O. S. No. 299/55, was the dispossession of the plaintiff of the suit properties subsequent to the dismissal of the suit-O. S. No. 169/50-51 and R. A. No. 27/52-53. It was held that the plaintiff was entitled to the share of his Vendor. But the suit was dismissed on the ground that he was not entitled to seek possession of the specific portions of the suit properties and he could get possession of the share of his Vendor only by way of partition. In the appeal preferred by the plaintiff being R. A. No. 269/56, the lower appellate Court confirmed the decree of the trial Court. 3. Therefore, the case if the plaintiff is that he has filed the present suit for partition and separate possession of the share of the first defendant, who is the vendor of the suit properties.

( 5 ) DEFENDANTS 2 to 5 resisted the suit. The first defendant-Vendor of the plaintiff remained absent throughout and did not resist the suit and as such he was placed ex parte. Defendants 2 to 5 who have resisted the suit also denied that the first defendant was entitled to any share in the properties of the family. They further pleaded that the first defendant was refused partition when demanded after the death of their father Muniswamy which took place in the month of November, 1947. They also contended that the first defendant was not entitled to 1/6th share but was only entitled to 1/8th share. They further c