AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We do not think that the orders of the Subordinate Judge and of this Court which are appealed against can be supported. Though there were
separate muchilikas for faslis 1306 and 1305, yet there was but one cause of action, viz., non-payment of rent by a tenant to his landlord. Though
the rents became payable under different documents and at different times, they are only different claims under the same cause of action or
tenancy. The case is very similar to the case where several articles are sold in succession by A to B. If the vendor sues for the price he must sue for
the price of all the goods sold up to the date of his suit and cannot sue separately first for one and then for another. Chockaliuga Pillai v. Kamara
Viruthalam 4 Mad. H.C.R. 334 and Grimbly v. Aykroyd 1 Exch. 479 there quoted. Section 43 of the CPC is a bar to the second suit.
We set aside the order of this Court appealed against and the decree of the Subordinate Judge and dismiss the suits with costs throughout.