Judgment.- I agree with the learned Subordinate Judge of Padmanabhapuram in A.S. No. 302 of 1952 that this suit is barred by res judicata by virtue of Exhibit I Judgment and that the title and possession of the shop and its site between the first plaintiff and the second defendant were in issue in Exhibit I the former suit. It was heard and decided against the plaintiff. It was found that the plaintiff had no title to the property and that Marthandan Aundy or plaintiffs therein were never in possession of the plaint property because no possession was found to have passed under Exhibit D delivery list. Now the first plaintiff and under him the fourth plaintiff who claim title under the plaintiff in the former suit, sues for declaration of the same title and possession, not for the shop and shop site, simpliciter as before, but for the whole property covered by the sale. The plaintiffs have included the first defendant also in the array of parties. It has been repeatedly held that the impleading of a new party or adding some more items of property in the latter suit alone does not take away the finality and binding character of the former decision. Madhavan v. K. Kochan1 , Amirkhisro v. Farozshah 2 , Mithoolal v. Jayanarayan3, Gokaran Prasad v. Chhotey Narayan4, Husain Mirza v. Raghubar Dayal5, Shamaj v. Govind6, Tekchand Kapurchand v. Birzabai7, Priyanath v. Kalicharan8, Sekendar Ali v. Sardaruddin Bhuniya9, Mst. Yakut v. Inayatullah10, Rangasayi v. Nagarathnamma11, Pattarachariar v. Alamelumangai Ammal12, T. Raman v. K.P. Manakkal13, Panga v. Unnikutti14and Pathumma v. Salimamma15. Thus a party who has lost in one Court cannot add causes of action to the original cause of action in the earlier suit for the purpose of swelling the amount of the valuation and then claim that the former Court is not competent to try the subsequent suit. The true test for the purpose of deciding a question of res judicata is as pointed out in the exhaustive, analytical and lucid discussion the A.I.R. Commentaries on the Code of Civil Procedure, 6th edition (1956) Vol. The true test for the purpose of deciding a question of res judicata is as pointed out in the exhaustive, analytical and lucid discussion the A.I.R. Commentaries on the Code of Civil Procedure, 6th edition (1956) Vol. I., pages 427 and 604 is, each cause of action in the subsequent suit should be treated as a separate suit, then, although taking all the causes of action together the second suit may be said to be outside the jurisdiction of the former Court, the former decision will operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit. Where a decision has been given by a competent Court in a previous suit, regarding part of the claim of the present suit and between the same parties, then so much of the claim which is common to the two suits would be excluded from the subsequent suit as barred. Therefore all the requirements of section 11, Civil Procedure Code, have been fulfilled. The conclusion of the learned Subordinate Judge is correct. The Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. No leave. V.S. ----- Appeal dismissed.