1. 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.
2. But as to the claim for damages for breach of the alleged agreement, the suit is not barred, Viraraghava v. Subbakka I.L.R. 5 Mad. 397 and Mallamma v. Venkapva I.L.R. 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 Code of Civil Procedure to have an agreement certified, and there was no order under that Section. The case of Guruvayya v. Vudayappa I.L.R. 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