The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of res-judicata in property disputes, and the court's reliance on previous adjudication and conclusion of the matter in other suits.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Present appeal is by the plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and order dtd. 16/8/2007 passed in R.A.No.22/2006 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Hospete (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court'), in and by which the First Appellate Court while allowing the appeal filed by the defendants set aside the judgment and decree dtd. 17/1/2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), H.B.Halli in O.S.No.73/2004.

2. The aforesaid suit in O.S.No.73/2004 was filed by the plaintiff for relief of declaration of his right over the property delineated as 'ABCD' road and for mandatory injunction, directing the defendants to remove basement wall constructed on the property delineated as 'EFGH', on the premise, that he is the absolute owner in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land bearing Sy.No.660/AE1 which is described as 'A' schedule property in the plaint. That towards Southern side of the said property, plots have been formed and there is road on the Eastern side commencing from Halagapur road. That the plaintiff required to reach his land from Southern to Northern side after crossing the said Halagapur road. That in between the plots Nos.40, 26, 54 and 39, there exists a 60 feet road through which the plaintiff has to reach to his property. Except the said road, there is no other alternative access to reach his property.

3. That the defendants are the mother and daughter, who are living in a joint family and have no right or interest over the said road, except between the aforesaid plots. That the defendants have constructed a house, portion of which is on the said road. That the construction made by the defendants is illegal and obstructing access of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit.

4. On service of summons, defendants filed written statement denying the plaint averments. It is specifically contended that the suit is also hit by principles of res-judicata in view of the decree passed in suit in O.S.Nos.65/2002 and 66/2002. It is contended by the defendants that they are the absolute owners of plots No.98A and 98B and that except the road, there is nothing in between the said plots as claimed by the plaintiff. That the defendants have constructed only fencing wall on their plots and the plaintiff has no locus standi to question the same.

5. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issued:

"1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the existence of Rasta measuring 60 feet wide as shown ABCD in the Hand sketch map?

2) Whether the plaintiff proves that he has got right of easementary over the ABCD Rasta as shown in the hand sketch map?

3) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants have illegally undertaken work of construct on over the portion of rasta which is shown in EFGH of handsketch map?

4) Whether the defendants proves that the suit is hit by the principles of res judicata ?

5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled the relief of Mandatory injunction?

6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled the relief of declaration?

7) What order or Decree ?"

6. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and exhibited 10 documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 and examined 3 witnesses as PW2 to PW4. Defendant No.1 examined himself as DW1 and exhibited 15 documents marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D15.

7. On appreciation of evidence, Trial Court has answered issues No.1, 2 and 6 in the Affirmative and issues No.3, 4 and 5 in the Negative and consequently passed the judgment and decree declaring that the portion of the land shown as 'ABCD' in the rough sketch, which is a 60 feet road and that the plaintiff having right to way over the said road. However, relief of mandatory injunction for removal of alleged construction of basement wall by the defendants on the portion shown as 'EFGH' was rejected. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants filed regular appeal in R.A.No.22/2006 before the First Appellate Court considering the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal. The First Appellate Court framed the fo