The principle contained in Order 2, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, can only be invoked if three conditions are satisfied: (i) the earlier suit and the second suit must arise from the same cause of action; (ii) the two suits must be between the same parties; and (iii) the earlier suit must have been decided on merits.

1. The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.08.1963, rendered by the learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Amritsar.

2. In order to understand the points in controversy, it becomes necessary to have a look at the following pedigree table:

3. It is alleged that the business of printing press under the name and style of Wazir Hind Press, Hall Bazar, Amritsar, belonged to the Hindu undivided family of which Lakha Singh was the Karta. After his death, his eldest son Bhupinder Singh took over the business. He is stated to have died on September 28, 1952. Thereafter, his widow Smt. Lajwant Kaur took over this business and applied for a licence to run the press in her own name as the proprietress of the business. This application was allowed on January 19, 1953, by the Additional District Magistrate, Amritsar. Upon this, Rajwans Kaur widow of Lakha Singh, Tarlok Singh and Avnashi Singh, brothers of Bhupinder Singh deceased, filed a suit for declaration that the business being the ownership of the Hindu undivided family, Smt. Lajwant Kaur should be restrained from running this business in her own name. Iqbal Singh, the minor son of Bhupinder Singh deceased, was also impleaded as party. This suit was decreed on March 31, 1953, by the learned trial Judge, Iqbal Singh minor and his mother Smt. Lajwant Kaur filed an appeal against this judgment which was registered as R. F. A. No. 139 of 1955 (Iqbal Singh V/s. Abnashi Singh). It was decided by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of S. S. Dulat and P. C. Pandit, JJ., on April 11, 1960 (Punj). The Division Bench held that there was no actual partition of the property in dispute in 1945 as alleged by the appellants before them. The Bench also observed as under:-

"In view of all that I have said above since I have held that the joint Hindu family had disrupted in 1944 and reunion has not been proved, the declaration sought for by the plaintiffs cannot be granted. They can if they are advised, file a suit for actual partition of the property or seek any other appropriate relief."

4. Having failed to get an injunction against Mst. Lajwant Kaur, to run the press in her own name. Mst. Rajwans Kaur, wife of Lakhbir Singh deceased. Tarlok Singh and Avnashi Singh his two sons, filed a suit for partition of the entire property of the Hindu undivided family and rendition of accounts against Mst. Lajwant Kaur and Iqbal Singh. The learned trial Judge who heard this suit framed the following issues on the basis of the pleadings raised by the parties:-

(1) Whether the plaint is properly valued for purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction ?

(2) Whether the suit is within time?

(3) Whether the suit is barred by the principles of res judicata and Order 2, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure ?

(4) Whether there has been disruption of joint Hindu family? If so, on what date and with what effect ?

(5) Whether there was complete partition of the property belonging to the family. If so, when and to what effect ?

(6) Whether the plea of issue No. (5) is barred by res judicata?

(7) Whether the defendants are in adverse and exclusive possession of Wazir Hind Press ?

(8) Whether the properties mentioned in the plaint are joint properties of the parties? If not, which or any of them is joint between the parties?

(9) What are the respective shares of the parties in the joint properties.?

(10) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any accounts from defendant No. 1? If so, since when ?

(11) Relief.

5. On issue No. (1), it was held that the court-fee had been properly paid. On issue No. (2), it was held that the suit was within time. On issue No. (3), it was held that the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata. On issue No. (4) it was held that the joint family had disrupted on December 18, 1944, and thereafter the family ceased to be joint Hindu family. On issue No. (5), it was held that there had been no partition of the joint property. On issue No. (6), it was held that the respondents cou