The present suit is for the return of the money paid on account of renewal fees under the agreement which was held to be unenforceable in Original Suit No. 650 of 1898 and consequently for money paid on an existing consideration which has since failed. This right of action is clearly different from the right on which the suit for specific performance was brought. Section 43 of the Civil Procedure Code does not therefore apply [Pachiakatti Udaiyan v. Panchanada Patten (1)]. The view taken in Muthu Narayanu Reddi v. Rayalu Reddi (2) relied on behalf of the respondent is in conflict with the current of decisions in this Court as well as the decisions of the Judicial Committee as will he seen from the judgment in Ramaswami Ayyar v. Vythinatha Ayyar (3), in which the whole subject has been recently examined at length. Section 29 of the Specific Relief Act also has no application, the present claim not being one for compensation for broach of the agreement to grant a renewal. The suit is in time since it was brought within three years from the decision in the suit for specific performance [Venkata Narasimhulu v. Peramma , Venkatarana Ayyar v. Venkatasubramanian and Sriramulu v. Chinna Venkatasami ] The decree of the lower Court is reversed and there will be a decree in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 60 with interest at six per cent, (per annum) from the 21st March 1902 to date, of payment and costs throughout.