JUDGMENT : CHAMIER, J. Debi Prasad who was the owner of a Mahal in 1883 transferred to one Dalganjan Singh on condition that he (Debi Prasad) shoula retain the land now in dispute, as well as some other land, but that Dalganjan Singh should pay the whole of land revenue, including that of the land reserved for Debi Prasad and should also give him an allowance of Rs. 12 per annum. The original parties to this contract died many years ago. There has been a partition of the Mahal. The plaintiff appellant is the lambardar of one of the Mahals. The plaintiff in S.A. No. 1297 of 1911, which will be mentioned again hereafter, is the lambardar of the other Mahal. For many years the lambardars of the two Mahals have, with varying success been endeavouring to compel the present holders of the land, originally reserved by Debi Prasad for himself, to pay the land revenue which has been assessed upon it. In the present case the plaintiff is claiming the revenue of the land held by the defendants for the years 1315, 1316 and 1317, Fasli. The first court dismissed the suit as barred by the rule of res judicata. 2. The District Judge on appeal held that the matter was not res judicata, but that there was an agreement between the predecessors in title of the parties, that the owner of the hakiat mutfariqa i.e. the land reserved by Debi Prasad, should be for ever free from liability to pay the land revenue, that the agreement had been acted upon and had never been set aside, therefore the learned Judge was of opinion that until it was set aside the lambardars had no claim to be re-imbursed for the revenue paid by them. On the merits I have already expressed my opinion at length in second appeal No. 1207 of 1911, decided by me on January 4, 1913 and, [1913] II A.L.J.R., 212. I have nothing to add to what I said on that occasion. Several cases of this kind have arisen in Oudh and for many years past it has been held that an agreement of the kind now in question cannot be enforced for all time against the persons who may happen to be the owners of the mahal at the instance of the persons who may happen to be the owners of the land reserved. 3. The only other question in the case is whether the claim is barred by the rule of res judicata. Two decisions are relied upon. The first is one by an Assistant Collector of the second class who admittedly could not have tried the present case. The suit before that officer, was, like the present suit one for arrest of revenue for three years, but the plaintiff gave up a few Annas and so brought the claim within the jurisdiction of an Assistant Collector of the second class. In the present case he has not given up those few annas and the claim is not cognizable by an assistant Collector of the second class. According to the decisions of this court it seems to me that the decree in the previous case does not render the matter res judicata. The only authority for the contrary view to which I have been referred is the remark made by Rampini and PRATT, JJ. Bhagwanbutti Chaudrani v. Forbes,[1900] 28 Cal., 78. In view of the course of rulings in this court I do not feel bound to follow that decision. 4. Next it was said that the matter is concluded by a decree of a Subordinate Judge passed in 1875.’ The parties to the case before the Subordinate Judge were not the same as the parties to the present suit and there is nothing to show how, if at all, the parties to the present suit are in any way connected with the parties to the suit tried by the Subordinate Judge. In my opinion it has not been shown that the matter is res judicata. I, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate court and remand the case to that court to be disposed of according to law. Costs in this court will be costs in the cause.