8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would point out that the first respondent herein has not been consistent. While in O.S.No.368 of 1994, right of easement was sought over the area lying to the north of the suit wall, in the written statement filed in O.S.No.367 of 2001, the first respondent claimed title. These two claims are clearly contradictory to each other. The first respondent herein is having the property to the south of the suit wall. Even according to the first respondent, she owns 13 feet north-south as per Ex.B.13. The property to the north thereafter belongs to the appellants herein. By claiming easement right, the first respondent herein had admitted that what is lying to the north of the suit wall is the property of the appellants herein. He would further point out that while the appellants herein are the plaintiffs in one suit, the first respondent herein is the plaintiff in another suit. In fact the first respondent herein first filed suit. The specific stand of the first respondent is that the suit wall is her wall. Therefore, the burden lay primarily on her. According to the learned counsel, the first respondent had miserably failed to prove her claim. He also commented that the report of the Advocate Commissioner is unhelpful. He would point out that apart from the appellants, there are quite a few others who are in occupation of the northern side. The first respondent herein had not impleaded them. Therefore, the suit has to fail for non-joinder of necessary parties. He would also point out that the relief of the mandatory injunction has been sought for, but the details have not been furnished. The learned counsel would point out that even if the Court comes to the conclusion that the appellants have not proved their case in O.S.No.367 of 2001, that cannot automatically run in decreeing of the suit filed by the first respondent in her favour.
