In a Regular Second Appeal against a dismissal of a suit for declaration and injunction regarding a pathway, the court held that the suit was barred by res judicata because the matter was directly and substantially in issue in a former suit (O.S.No.120/1999) and was finally decided against the plaintiffs.
Pending interlocutory applications closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/30TH KARTHIKA, 1938
RSA.No. 849 of 2016 (A)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 1.9.2015 IN AS 140/2010 of III ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 27.2.2010 IN OS 382/2008 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD
APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS:
BY ADVS.SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS. :
R1-R3 BY ADVS. SRI.E.RAMACHANDRAN SRI.R.UMASANKAR
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-112016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OKB
K.HARILAL, J.
R.S.A. No.849 of 2016
Dated this the 21st day of November, 2016
JUDGMENT
The appellants are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.382/2008 of
the Munsiff's Court, Palakkad and the respondents are the defendants therein. The suit was one for declaration as well as prohibitory and mandatory injunction.
RSA.849/16 :2:
predecessors continuously, uninterruptedly and as of right for the last so many years. Now it is learnt that the defendants are trying to obstruct the said pathway. Hence the suit was filed for the aforesaid reliefs.
RSA.849/16 :3:
plaintiffs.
RSA.849/16 :4:
the decree and judgment passed by the trial court. It is not disputed that the very same pathway passing through the defendants' property is claimed in the present suit. Thus, the matter directly and substantially in issue in the present suit has been directly and substantially in issue in the former suit O.S.No.120/1999 between the same parties and the issue has been finally decided against the present plaintiffs. In other words, the present suit is barred by res judicata. Hence the plaintiffs are not entitled to agitate the said issue again by filing a fresh suit, as rightly found by the courts below. Thus, the courts below are justified in finding that the suit is hit by res judicata. No other question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Hence this appeal will stand dismissed.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand closed.
Sd/K.HARILAL, Judge.
okb
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the present suit is barred by res judicata due to prior litigation between the same parties on the same issue in O.S.No.120/1999.
Kurusu Vimala
Martin Thomas
S.K. Kumar
S. Udayakumar
S. Premkumar
K. Harilal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
