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 O.S. 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. (Subbakka v, Viraragava Reddi I.L.R., 5 M., 397
and Mallamma v. Venkappa I.L.R., 8 M., 277 respectively). If the Subordinate Judge in his orders in execution of the decree in the previous suit
had decided that there was no agreement as alleged, 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 u/s 258 of the CPC to have an agreement certified, and there was no order under
that section. The case of Ouravayya v. Vudancvppa I.L.R., 5 M., 397 does not therefore apply.
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.