CHANDRAKANLARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a defendants' second appeal against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court in r. a. No. 8/1986. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to this appeal may bestated briefly and they are as follows: ( 3 ) THE 1st respondent filed the suit in the court of the munsiff, chikodi, inter alia seeking partition of the suit schedule property, a house belonging to the undivided joint hindu family of the plaintiffs vendor and the defendants. Defendants 1 and 2 entered appearance while defendants 3 and 4 though served remained absent and they were placed ex-pane. ( 4 ) THE plaintiff had purchased undivided 1/5th share from the maternal uncle of defendant-1. The defendants resisted the suit inter alia on the ground that in an earlier suit filed by them they had secured injunction against the plaintiff erecting a wall between the portion acquired by them and the portions said to have been purchased by him. Therefore, they contended that the suit was barred as being hit by the Rule of res judicata. The trial court decreed the suit for partition holding that the cause of action for the suit earlier filed by the defendants 1 and 2 was different from the cause of action pleaded by the plaintiff in the suit for partition and for separate possession of the suit schedule property of which he was a purchaser from a co-sharer. Aggrieved by the same, defendants 1 and 2 filed the appeal before the learned civil judge, chikodi who confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the appeal agreeing with the reasoning and conclusions reached by the trial court. Therefore, the present appeal. ( 5 ) BEFORE this court also the only point urged is that the earlier suit filed for injunction resulted successfully in defendants obtaining permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff from erecting the wall and therefore the earlier suit operated as res judicata. I find it difficult to accept that argument because it is not enough that the suit must be between the same parties or their legal representatives but also must be based on the same cause of action. I find it difficult to accept that argument because it is not enough that the suit must be between the same parties or their legal representatives but also must be based on the same cause of action. If the cause of action is different, then the second suit which was filed for partition and separate possession of the undivided share of the plaintiffs vendor, could not attract the bar based on the principle of res judicata. ( 6 ) THEREFORE, the conclusions reached by the lower appellate court is correct and does not call for interference. The second appeal is mis-conceived and it is rejected. Appeal rejected. --- *** --- .