If the cause of action and reliefs claimed are different, no permission is required for filing subsequent suit.

The plaintiff, who was successful before the trial Court and lost his case before the first Appellate Court, is the appellant in this second appeal.

2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings in the suit.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration, possession and for mesne profits. The case of the plaintiff as per the averments in the plaint is as follows:-

The plaintiff is the owner of the suit property bearing Survey No.125/2 of Chetti Chavadi Village comprised in patta Nos.1 and 2 in Salem Taluk measuring 0.48.0 Hectares dry land in which the defendant unlawfully occupied the portion measuring about 1.20 acres. The suit property was originally portion of Chetti Chavadi Jaghir in Salem Taluk, which is a Sarva Inam. The entire Jaghir was purchased by the Magnesite Corporation of India under two sale deeds dated 31.8.1945 and after purchase, the Magnesite Corporation of India has been in enjoyment of both Melwaram and Kudiwaram rights in the entire Jaghir. The assets and liabilities of the Magnesite Corporation of India were taken over by the plaintiff in the year 1964 and from then onwards, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the entire Chetti Chavadi Jaghir including the suit property. As per the Madras Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act of 1963, the entire Chetti Chavadi Jaghir was taken over by the Government in the year 1971 and thereafter, survey operations were carried out and the Settlement Tahsildar, Salem, conducted enquiry regarding the issuance of patta for the said lands in which the defendant also participated. The suit property is in Survey No.125/2. The Settlement Tahsildar in his S.R.Nos.160, 161, 162, 164, 169 and 170 passed orders on 07.4.1972 granting Ryotwari Patta to the plaintiff for S.No.125/2. The appeal preferred by the defendant and others before the Inam Abolition Tribunal, Salem, in M.I.A.No.157 of 1974 was dismissed on 08.9.1975. The plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and grant of patta has been confirmed by the Inam Abolition Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Salem. The defendant attempted to trespass into the suit property on or about 20.12.1976 for which action could be initiated by the plaintiff only as per law. The defendant made several attempts to trespass into the suit property. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.697 of 1976 on the file of the Sub Court, Salem, for permanent injunction against the defendant and others. The defendant unlawfully entered into the suit property and filed written statement stating that he was in possession of the portion of the suit property. The plaintiff has withdrawn the said suit filed in O.S.No.697 of 1976 by filing an application in I.A.No.344 of 1978 with liberty to file a comprehensive suit on the same cause of action and the said petition was allowed permitting the plaintiff to withdraw the suit and file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The defendant unlawfully occupied the area measuring about 1.20 acres in Survey No.125/2 in Chetti Chavadi Village and he is a trespasser. There are fruit bearing trees grown up by the plaintiff in the area occupied by the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff is also entitled for mesne profits. Hence, the suit.

4. The suit is resisted by the defendant by filing written statement as under:-

The plaintiff never had the kudivaram in Jaghir and also was never in possession of the suit property. The title and possession in an Inam Estate between the parties can be decided only by the Civil Court. The defendant has been in possession of the land for more than 50 years and his father was in possession of the same even before him. He has cultivated the land with wet crops with the help of a well sunk by his father and it was deepened by him. The allegation in the plaint that the defendant trespassed into the suit property on 20.12.1976 is denied. The suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.697 of 1976 was withdrawn because of the fact that the de