Judgment.- The first defendant is the appellant before me. The short facts relating to this Second Appeal are as follows:

2. The present suit O.S. No. 24 of 1961 was preferred before the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Ootacamund, for a declaration, of the plaintiff’s title and also for recovery of possession 50 cents (northern half of Survey No. 22/2). The case of the plaintiff is that Lakshmi Animal was the original owner and that the properties devolved on her granddaughter, Girjammal, as stridhana heir and from whom he purchased underExhibit A-1 dated 29th November, 1957 and notwithstanding this valid purchase by this plaintiff, the first defendant has been in continuous wrongful possession of the property. Hence the suit.

3. In the defence of the first defendant, it was contended that Rangiah the husband of Lakshmi Ammal, was the real owner who sold under Exhibit B-6 the entire property of one acre covered by Survey No. 22/2 in favour of Kapini Gowder from whom the first defendant had come to purchase the property under Exhibit B-7 dated 9th April, 1956, and therefore, his title ought to prevail. It was further, contended in defence that in so far as there was a prior suit, O.S. No. 54/57, in which the plaintiff originally sought for recovery of possession basing on the title of purchase from Vasudevan, son of Lakshmi Ammal, dated 12th March, 1956 and later sought to amend that suit by preferring I.A.No.610 of 1957 basing on Exhibit A-1 dated 29th November, 1957, the failure to include the present claim with reference to the northern half would be hit by Order 2, rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code.

4. The learned Subordinate Judge who tried the suit came to the conclusion that the findings rendered in the prior suit viz., O.S. No. 54/57, would constitute res judicata. The present suit, according to him, was not barred by Order 2, rule 2, Civil Procedure Code. These findings were affirmed by the learned District Judge, Coimbatore (West) in A.S. No. 111 of 1969. Hence the present Second Appeal.

5. The only question on which arguments have been addressed, somewhat strenuously, by Mr. T. R. Rajagopalan learned counsel for the appellant is that the present suit is clearly barred by Order 2, rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, and the submission put shortly is that no doubt on the date on which O.S. No. 54/57 was filed, the plaintiff did not get title under Exhibit A-1 and the title was based upon the purchase from Vasudevan on 12th March, 1956. But, in so far as I.A. No. 610/57 was filed to strengthen the title of the plaintiff on the basis of Exhibit A-1, the claim relating to the northern half also ought have been included. The cause of action for both the suits being the same, the present suit is barred by Order 2, rule 2, Civil Procedure Code. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel relies on a number of authorities which I will consider one by one, below.

6. Mr. Parasurama Iyer, the learned counsel for the respondent, would submit that it was impossible for the plaintifl to include in O.S. No. 54 of 1957, which was a suit relating to the southern, half, the present claim relating to the northern half because the cause of action for the prior suit was trespass of the first defendant made on 15th April, 1956. Therefore, according to him the causes of action are different though there may be a similarity with reference to the reliefs. When the title was disputed by the defendant in the prior suit which was only for recovery of possession Exhibit A-1 was buttressed to strengthen the title of the plaintifl whereas the present suit is for a declaration of title and for recovery of possession. But there is no allegation of trespass and it is the continuance of the first defendant in wrongful possession that has given rise to the present suit. Therefore, there is no bar under Order 2, rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, and the cases cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are distinguishable. Before I delve into the merits of this case

Click Here to Read the rest of this document