Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. The plaintiff (appellant) brought the suit, out of which this second appeal has arisen, to set aside the attachment of his holding effected by his landlord, the defendant, for recovery of arrears of rent for Fasli 1325. The only question is whether the pattah tendered is proper, having regard to the fact that it contained a term that the landlord is entitled to charge fasli jasthi, for the second and third crops, though not raised by the landlords water. If that question is res judicata by the decision in a former suit between these same parties as regards the same holding in S.S. No. 1123 of 1914, the question has to be answered in the negative.

2. In that former suit (which was also for setting aside the attachment of the holding for arrears of rent due for Fasli 1323) the landlord set up two defences, namely, that the tenant having raised the second and third crops with the landlords water was liable to pay fasli jasthi and (2) that even if he did it with the aid of his (tenants) own well water, he was still bound in law to pay fasli jasthi. He did not contend that there was a contract in force between the parties, by which such fasli jatthi sould be