AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The application is barred u/s 230 unless the order sanctioning the agreement u/s 257-A can be said to be a new decree or an order subsequent
to decree directing flie payment of money within the meaning of Section 230 (b). In our opinion, the order sanctioning the compromise cannot be
said, to be either anew decree or an order for the payment of money within this section - see Venkatagiri Iyer v. Sadagopachariar (1900) M.L.J.
369 It is then contended that it is res judicata between these parties, that the order amounts to a decree, because, on an objection taken u/s 311 to
the confirmation of a sale in execution of the decree, it was held that the order operated as a decree and rendered notice u/s 245 unnecessary. This
ruling, in our opinion, proceeded on a mistake of law, and such a mistake cannot operate as res judicata in a subsequent proceeding which in no
way affects the operation of the previous order confirming the sale - Mangalathammal v. Narayanaswami Aiyar ILR (1907) M. 461 and Aitamma
v. Narayana Bhatta ILR (1903) M. 504.
We agree with the lower Court and dismiss this appeal with costs.