https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169919 Order II Rule 2 barred a later suit only where both suits arose from the same cause of action and the omitted relief was available in the earlier proceeding; because the prior suit was based on an alleged agreement for sale and the later suit was founded on title and possession, the bar did not apply. Res judicata also failed because tenancy was not pleaded, framed, or decided in the later suit, and an earlier adverse finding on that point could not independently defeat the claim. The decree for possession was therefore largely sustained, subject to an equitable modification preserving a portion of the land for the appellants as protected tenants and limiting execution to the balance. en-us Mon, 16 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 May 2015 16:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169919 Order II Rule 2 barred a later suit only where both suits arose from the same cause of action and the omitted relief was available in the earlier proceeding; because the prior suit was based on an alleged agreement for sale and the later suit was founded on title and possession, the bar did not apply. Res judicata also failed because tenancy was not pleaded, framed, or decided in the later suit, and an earlier adverse finding on that point could not independently defeat the claim. The decree for possession was therefore largely sustained, subject to an equitable modification preserving a portion of the land for the appellants as protected tenants and limiting execution to the balance. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 16 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169919