Judgment :- 1. The appellant is the defendant before the trial Court. One Venkatachala, Ramasami and Arunachala are brothers. They divided their properties under the original of Ex. A5 dated 24.6.1925. In that partition an extent of A.C. 2.13 in S. No. 20/3 was allotted to Venkatachala. Ramasamy was given A.C. 3.86 in S. No. 26. The respondents plaintiffs 1 and 2 claim to have purchased the suit property A.C. 2.13 in S. No. 20/3 under three sale deeds from Venkatachala. According to then the appellant filed a suit in O.S. No. 659 of 1964 in respect of A.C. 2.86 in S. No. 26 and A.C.O. 13 in S. No. 20/3 with a well against the first plaintiff obtained an order of ad-interim injunction and trespassed into this suit item on the strength of that injunction. They also filed a counter suit in O.S. No. 267 of 1965 in respect of the well in S. No. 20/3 and both the cases were pending. The respondents instituted O.S. No. 733 of 1970 out of which this appeal arises for declaration and possession before the District Munsif of Vellore in respect of A.C. 2.13 in S. No. 20/3. The property description in the plaint in O.S. No. 733 of 1970 expressly recites that since the well in S. No. 20/3 is the subject matter of litigation in O.S. No. 659 of 1964 and O.S. No. 267 of 1965, the same has not been impleaded in this suit. 2. The appellant resisted the suit contending that the partition in respect of the suit land under the original of Ex. A5 dated 24.6.1925 was not acted upon. By a subsequent family arrangement, Venkatachala gave away this S. No. 20/3 to Ramasamy, in view of the fact that Ramasamy was not given any share in the family house. Ramasamy who was an enjoyment of this land died in 1947 leaving behind his widow Seethammal and his two sons Subramani and Murugappa and three daughters. The widow and sons continued to enjoy this land and prescribed title to the same by adverse possession. Hence the sons of Venkatachala had no title to convey under the three sale deeds referred to above in favour of the plaintiffs. The appellant has purchased the well in suit S. No. 20/3 from Seethammal and other heirs of Ramasamy. The widow and sons continued to enjoy this land and prescribed title to the same by adverse possession. Hence the sons of Venkatachala had no title to convey under the three sale deeds referred to above in favour of the plaintiffs. The appellant has purchased the well in suit S. No. 20/3 from Seethammal and other heirs of Ramasamy. In any event, the present action is barred under O. 2, R. 2 of Civil Procedure Code in view of the suit in O.S. No. 267 of 1965. 3. The trial Court negatived the claim of the appellant/defendant to the suit property and found that the title vested with the plaintiffs/respondents. However it held that the action is barred under O. 2, R. 2, C.P.C., and on that ground dismissed the suit but without costs. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal to District Court North Arcot at Vellore in A.S. No. 175 of 1979. The only point urged before the lower appellate Court was regarding the bar of the suit under O. 2, R. 2, C.P.C. The District Court allowed the appeal set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit with costs throughout as prayed for. Aggrieved by the said decision the defendant has come forward with this second appeal. 4. The only point that arise for consideration in this second appeal is whether the present suit in O.S. No. 733 of 1970 is barred under O. 2, R. 2, C.P.C. in view of the omission to claim the same relief in O.S. No. 267 of 1965 itself. 5. Ex. B16 is the certified copy of the plaint in O.S. No. 267 of 1965 on the file of the District Munsif of Vellore. We find from this document that the first respondent herein has instituted this action against the present appellant and the Electricity Board for declaration that the well in S. No. 20/3 belongs to the first respondent and his son Ramalingam and for consequential injunction restraining the appellant herein and the Electricity Board from giving the service connection to the Electric Motor in the well. The well is S.N. 20/3 measuring A.C. 2.13 is the subject matter of that suit. The well is S.N. 20/3 measuring A.C. 2.13 is the subject matter of that suit. The plaint further reads that there is already another suit pending between the present first respondent and the appellant in O.S. No. 659 of 1964 on the file of the District Munsif of Vellore in respect of the property purchased by him under Ex. Bl the sale deed dated 16.5.1964. The appellant is purported to have purchased certain properties from Seethammal under sale deed dated 30.1.1964 and appears to have obtained an ownership certificate and moved the Electricity Board to grant service connection on the strength of that certificate. The first respondent appraised the Electricity Board about the dispute in respect of the ownership of the well and requested them to refrain from giving service connection. The suit came to be filed by seeking to get power supply from the Electricity Board for the well in S. No. 20/3 a cloud has been cast on the title of the first respondent on his son to this property. The first respondent has instituted the present suit for declaration and recovery of possession with mesne profits in respect of A.C. 2.13 in S. No. 20/3 and the cause of action for the suit is stated have arisen by the end of 1964 when the appellant trespassed into this property and is in unlawful possession of the same. As per Ex. A10 the first plaintiff/respondent herein as D.W. 4 in O.S. No. 659 of 1964 has given evidence that the present appellant is in enjoyment of S. No. 20/3 from about 7 or 8 years since the date of injunction order. So the learned counsel for the appellants argues that even according to the respondents they have been deprived of their possession of the entire extent in S. No. 20/3 by the time they came to file the suit in O.S. No. 267 of 1965. In spite of this the first plaintiff respondent confined his relief in O.S. No. 267 of 1965 only to the well portion in S. No. 20/3. Since he has omitted to claim the relief in respect of the whole survey number this suit is barred under O. 2, R. 2, C.P.C. 6. In spite of this the first plaintiff respondent confined his relief in O.S. No. 267 of 1965 only to the well portion in S. No. 20/3. Since he has omitted to claim the relief in respect of the whole survey number this suit is barred under O. 2, R. 2, C.P.C. 6. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the appellant cited decisions in Sidramappa v. Rajeshetty 1, Suraj Ratan Thirani v. The Azamabad Tea Company 2, The State of Rajas than v. R.D. Singh 3, and Mohammad Khelil khan v. Mahbub Ali Mian 4. The privy Council has laid down in the last decision that “The correct test in cases falling under O. 2, R. 2 in whether the claim in the new suit is in fact founded upon a cause of action distinct from that which was the foundation for the former suit. The cause of action means every fact which will be necessary for the plaintiff to prove if traversed in order to support his right to the judgment. If the evidence to support the two claims is different then the causes of action are also different. The causes of action in the two suits may be considered to be the same if in substance they are identical. The cause of action has no relation whatever to the defence that may be set up by the defendant nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. It refers to the media upon which the plaintiff asks the Court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour.” The Supreme Court has stated in 1964(6) S.C.R. page 192 at 208 that the test adopted by the Judicial Committee for determining the identity of the cause of action in the two suits in the decision mentioned above is sound and expresses correctly the proper interpretation of the provision. In 1970(I) Supreme Court Journal page 857 the Supreme Court has laid down that the requirement of O. 2, R. 2, is that every suit should include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of a cause of action. Cause of action is a cause of action which gives occasion for and forms the foundation of the suit. Cause of action is a cause of action which gives occasion for and forms the foundation of the suit. If that cause of action enables a person to ask for a larger and wider relief than that to which he limits his claim, he cannot afterward seek to recover the balance in independent proceedings. In AIR 1972 Rajasthan page 241 the cause of action for the recovery of the amount was covered by the cause of action in the previous suit for injunction. Held claim for recovery of the amount is barred by O. 2. R. 2, C.P.C. Under O. 2, R. 2(1), C.P.C. every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court. 2. Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.” 7. Now let us proceed to examine the contention of the appellant on the principles enunciated in the above said decisions. Be it noted that both O.S. Nos. 659 of 1964 and 267 of 1965 were pending trial when the present suit O.S. No. 733 of 1970 came to be filed in the Court of District Munsif of Vellore. The appellant herein filed O.S. No. 659 of 1964 for declaration of his title to the entirely of A.C. 2.86 in S. No. 26 and 13 cents in S. No. 20/3 and for consequential injunction against the first respondent herein on the basis of the sale deed dated 30.1.1964 from Seethammal. Subsequently, the first respondent herein in his turn filed the suit in O.S. No. 167 of 1965 for declaration that the well in S. No. 20/3 belongs to him and his son and for a consequential injunction restraining the Electricity Board and the appellant from giving service connection to the Electric Motor in the well. The present suit is one for declaration and recovery of possession in respect of the entire extent of A.C. 2.13 in S. No. 20/3 by the respondents from the appellant. The present suit is one for declaration and recovery of possession in respect of the entire extent of A.C. 2.13 in S. No. 20/3 by the respondents from the appellant. The suit has been instituted on the ground that under the guise of the injunction order in O.S. No. 659 of 1964 the respondent has transposed into the entire subject matter of the suit including the well therein and is in unlawful possession of the same from the end of 1964. Whereas the provocation for the institution of O.S. No. 267 of 1965 was the attempt by the appellant to obtain service connection to the Electric Motor in the well in S. No. 20/3 after obtaining an ownership certificate from the Village Officers and the apprehension in the mind of the first respondent that this act on the part of the appellant has cast a cloud on his title to the well and it would affect the prospects of his defence in O S. No. 659 of 1964. And as it has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, his claim in O.S. No. 267 of 1965 is not based on trespass. While the cause of action for the present suit is the trespass committed by the appellant in 1964 and his successful keeping respondents out of possession, the cause of action for the suit in O.S. No. 267 of 1965 is the attempt on the part of the appellant to get electricity service connection to the well in S. No. 20/3. So there could be no doubt that both the suits are not based on the same cause of action. The action which gave occasion for and farmed the foundation for the earlier suit is different from that of the present suit. It cannot be said that in O.S. No. 267 of 1965 the first respondent herein was in a position to ask for larger and wider relief and he has omitted to do so. The claim in the present suit is founded upon a cause of action which was distinct from that which was the foundation for the former suit. The evidence to support the two claims is different, and they are not identical in substance. The claim in the present suit is founded upon a cause of action which was distinct from that which was the foundation for the former suit. The evidence to support the two claims is different, and they are not identical in substance. What motivated the 1st plaintiff to institute O.S. No. 267 of 1965 was the steps taken by the respondent to obtain service connection to the well in S. No. 20/3. On the other hand this suit was filed because of this trespass committed by this respondent in the entire extent of S. No. 20/3. O. 2, R. 2, C.P.C. does not require that when a transaction gives rise to several causes of action, the plaintiff must combine all the causes of action in one suit. The requirement of the rule is that when there is a cause of action, the plaintiff cannot split it into parts and claim reliefs in parts by several actions. 8. Further while the present suit is one for declaration and recovery of possession, O.S. No. 267 of 1965 is for declaration and injunction. And the Privy Council has laid down in Sayed Silicon Saib v. Bontala Hasson that the dismissal of a previous suit for a declaration of title to certain properties is no bar to a suit for possession based on the same title on the causes of action are different in the two cases. The Courts below dismissed the later suit on the ground that it was open to the plaintiff to file a suit for possession also in the previous suit. The Privy Council has held that the causes of action in the two suits are different. To determine whether the suit is barred and the cause of action is same, we have to look to the plaint or the facts relied upon to constitute the cause of action in the first suit and if on those facts it was open to him to ask for the relief prayed for in the second suit the later would be barred. It is only when the cause of action is same that Order 2, Rules 1, 2 and 3 bar the suit. Therefore I find that the lower appellate Court has correctly decided the issue. 9. In the result, the second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.