Curgenven, J.

1. The first question arising in this appeal is whether a suit lay to recover money realized by defendant 1, in execution for costs contrary, it is said, to the terms of the agreement, Ex. A. The circumstances were somewhat peculiar. Defendant 1, as managing trustee of a Devaswom, sued to recover certain properties from the present plaintiffs 4 and 5, who were tenants of the Devaswom. He lost his case in the two lower Courts and plaintiffs 4 and 5 realized their costs from him. Then he filed a second appeal and apparently, while all the parties thought it was still pending, the agreement above referred to was concluded. The relevant part of the text of this agreement is translated in para. 6 of the Subordinate Judges judgment. In it defendant 1 agreed with another of the trustees on behalf of the remainder not to prosecute the litigation further, including Second Appeal 1606 of 1916, described as still pending before the High Court. This was on 16th September 1918 and in point of fact judgment in the second appeal had been delivered on 18th April 1918. It resulted in a decree for defendant 1, and he executed it for his second appeal costs against plaintiffs 4 a