1. We do not think that the decrees of the courts below can be sustained. We think that the suit is barred as res judicata.

2. The only fact relied on by the Lower Courts as proof of want of diligence and want of honesty in the conduct of the suit No. 171 of 1896 on the file of the District Munsif of Kasargod is the fact that certain Karars were not produced which the courts now think ought to have been filed in the interest of the tarward. This is certainly not sufficient to show that the suit was not conducted bona fide by the plaintiffs therein, viz., the successor of the Karnavan against whom the decree in O.S. 192 of 1894, on the file of the Kasargod Munsifs Court was passed and the senior Anandravan of the family, who was the de facto manager of the family under a Karar. The suit was actively and earnestly prosecuted, and the plea founded on the conditions in the Karars was strongly pressed by the plaintiffs, but was overruled by the court. It is not suggested that there was fraud or collusion in the conduct of that suit. The fact that the Karars are produced in the present suit and that the judges in the present suit attach an importance to them which the judge who de