Second appeal against a permanent injunction decree regarding obstruction of a common rastha. The court held that findings on the ranta's right of way were final by res judicata, dismissing the appeal due to no substantial question of law.
The second appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
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.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
SECOND APPEAL No.769 OF 2012
Dt: 19.09.2013
Between:-
Dereddy Nagi REddy and another Narla Swamy REddy and others
… Petitioners and … Respondents
This Court made the following:-
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
SECOND APPEAL No.769 OF 2012
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by defendant Nos.2 and 3. The suit viz., O.S.No. 78 of 2008 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court (Fast Track Court), Nandyal, filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4/plaintiffs was decreed on 19.12.2011 by granting permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 to 3 from causing any obstruction in the common rastha marked as ‘RRR’ in the plaint plan and the same was confirmed in appeal viz., A.S.No.6 of 2012, on the file of III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, dated 04.06.2013. 2. The facts of the case, which are illustratively born out by the plan filed along with the plaint, disclose that while the land belonging to the defendants is on the north and south of the common rastha marked as ‘ABCDEF’, the land belonging to the plaintiffs is to the further north as shown in the plan. However, the plaintiffs are enjoying the access to their land through the said common rastha and through site marked as ‘KLMN’. While there is no controversy with regard to the right of the plaintiffs’ use of the said site ‘KLMN’, the subject matter of this suit relates to the wall of 6 yards sought to be constructed by defendants at point H & G as shown in the plan. On
consideration of oral and documentary evidence, particularly, the judgment of the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Nandyal in O.S.No.36 of 1991 and O.S.No.174 of 1992, marked as Ex.A3, and its confirmation under appeals A.S.Nos.34 and 35 of 2000, under Exs.A5 to A7, both the courts below found that the right of the plaintiffs to enjoy the entire rastha marked as ‘RRR’ was already established and granted in the aforesaid suits and, therefore, the construction sought to be made by the defendants at point H & G was injuncted by a decree for permanent injunction. This appeal is preferred against the said decree.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. 4. The previous litigation, referred to above, shows that in the said judgment it was held that the said rastha being jointly enjoyed by the plaintiffs as well as the defendants, the plaintiffs have a right of passage from east to west and the said judgment has also attained finality. It was also found that the width of the said rastha marked as ‘RRR’ is 98 X 6 yards and the extent is covered by Ac.0-12 cents of area. The vendor of the present defendants being the party to the said suit and the findings herein having reached finality, the defendants herein who are successors-in-interest to
the defendants in the earlier suit; cannot claim to the contrary. The findings aforesaid reached by both the courts below are not open for adjudication afresh on the principle of res judicata. The said rasta in entirety, from east to west, having been available for joint enjoyment of the plaintiffs and the defendants, the courts below have rightly granted decree of permanent injunction. I, therefore, do not find any question of law much less any substantial question of law, requiring adjudication by this court.
The Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J
September 19, 2013 LMV
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
SECOND APPEAL No.769 OF 2012
Dated: September 19, 2013
LMV
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellate court should be conferred the jurisdiction to decide the case afresh on the issue of permanent injunction over a common rastha when it is barred by res judicata.
Dereddy Nagi Reddy and another
Saravanan Narla Swamy Reddy and others
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
