Chidambaram Pillai vs M.C.M. Duraiswamy Chetty

The question in this case is whether Order II, Rule 2, CPC bars the present suit. The plaintiff obtained a sale of certain property. Subsequently

the right of the vendor for uncollected rent was assigned to him. The plaintiff first sued for arrears of rent due tinder his assignment. The second suit

is for the rent based on title. In our opinion the causes of action ''for the two suits are not the same. It is true that under Order II, Rule 3, Civil

Procedure Code, the plaintiff could have joined both the causes of action in one suit. But that is not the test. As was pointed out in Dasarthy Naidu

v. Palala Kumaramull 45 Ind. Cas. 969 : 7 L.W. 557 : (1918) M.W.N. 427, the test is not whether the plaintiff could have sued for both the

claims in the same suit, but whether he was bound to have sued. Mr. K.S. Jayarama Aiyar contended that the only obligation was to pay rent and

that all the breaches of that obligation form but one cause of action. In the present case, the obligations are different. The one was incurred to the

assignor and he could have sued separately, notwithstanding the fast that he subsequently sold the property in respect of which rent had accrued

due. The obligation in the second suit relates to the right arising from the title to property itself. As was pointed out in Naro Hari v. Anpurnabai 11

B. 163 Ind. Jur. 6 Ind. Dee. 105 printed as foot-note in Vishnu Sakharam Nagarakar v. Krishnarao Malhar 11 Ind. Jur. 258 and in the cases

following it, it is not the final breach that constitutes the cause of action but the right and the infringement taken together. In this view, the two suits

were based on two different causes of action. The case is practically on all fours with Muhammad Abdul Aziz v. Rafi-un-nissa Bibi 17 Ind. Cas.

833 and we are of opinion that that case enunciates the true principle applicable to such oases. In Ittappan v. Manavikrama 8 M.L.J. 92 this

Court''s definition of the term ''cause of action'' accords with the view taken in Allahabad.

For these reasons, we must reverse the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the District Munsif with this modification, that plaintiff

should be given interest at one per cent. per mensem on Rs. 87-8-0 from the 1st March 1913 up to date of suit and on the other Rs. 87.8 0 from

1st March 1914 to date of suit, and thereafter at 6 per cent. per annum till date of realization. Parties will pay and receive proportionate costs here

and in the Courts below.