We do not think that the orders of the Subordinate Judge and of this Court which are appealed against can he 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 base is very similar to the case where several articles are sold in succession by A to B. If the vendor sues for the price, be 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. Chockalinga Pillai v. Kumara Virtuthalam (1) and Grimbly v. Aykroyd (2) there quoted. Section 43 of the Civil Procedure Code 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.