1. The plaintiff is the appellant; and he filed an earlier suit, O.S. No. 202 of 1959, claiming a right of way along the passage marked 'S'. in the commissioner's plan, Ex. Cl. One of the issues in that suit was "whether there was a mamool pathway leading to R.S. No. 616/10 running between R.S. Nos. 616/5 and 6, 4 and 7 as alleged by the defendants". (The passage is marked in Ex. Cl as 'F2'). That issue was raised at the instance of the respondents, the defendants and on that issue, a finding was recorded that the mamool passage marked 'F2' was the pathway used by the appellant to come from his property, R.S. No. 616/10 on the south, to his property, R S. No. 616/6 on the north. The short question for consideration in the second appeal is whether the said decision is res judicata

2.On the basis of the aforesaid finding on the said issue and also on the finding that there was no mamool pathway along the passage marked 'S', the previous suit was dismissed; and the appellant did not even attempt an appeal against that decision. On the other hand, be filed the present suit for injunction that the passage along 'F2' should be opened and that the appellant's use of the passag