AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In so far as the plaintiff''s claim is made for lands adjudged to the defendant in Original Suit No. 22 of 1884, it is not sustainable in the face of
that adjudication.
But as to the claim for damages for breach of the alleged agreement, the suit is not barred, Viraraghava v. Subbakka ILR 5 Mad. 397 and
Mallamma v. Venkapva ILR 8 Mad. 277. If the Subordinate Judge in his orders in execution of the decree in the previous suit had decided that
there was no agreement as a lleged, that decision would no doubt have operated as a bar by res judicata to this suit which is based upon that
agreement. We find, however, that there was no such decision. The agreement was set up simply for the purpose of staying execution until the
arrangements under the agreement were ripe for being certified to the Court in adjustment of the decree. The Subordinate Judge proceeded with
the execution of the decree, not because he found that there was no agreement, but, on the other hand, because there were disputes as to the
nature of the agreement. Neither party applied under Sections 258 of the CPC to have an agreement certified, and there was no order under that
Section. The case of Guruvayya v. Vudayappa ILR 18 Mad. 26 does not therefore apply.
3 .We must accordingly reverse the decree of the lower Court and remand the suit for trial according to law in so far as the claim for damages is
concerned. The suit as a suit for delivery of lands is dismissed. Costs to abide-and follow the result