The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the principle of res judicata in a property ownership dispute, specifically regarding the ownership of the thodu on the eastern side of the property.

JUDGMENT :

This Regular Second Appeal emanates from the decree and judgment dated 15.03.2007 passed by the Munsiff’s Court, Chalakkudy, in O.S.No.266 of 2005, which was confirmed by the Principal Subordinate Judge’s Court, Irinjalakkuda in A.S. No.59 of 2007. The plaintiff is in appeal before this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The case of the plaintiff in a nutshell is as follows:-

The plaint schedule property belongs to the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 is Mattathur Grama Panchayat. The property of the Panchayat is on the eastern boundary of the plaint schedule property. The other defendants have property on the east and southern sides of the plaint schedule property. Defendant Nos.3 to 9 are making preparations to convert a thodu that lies on the east of the property as a pathway. The plaintiff attempted to protect the suit property by constructing a compound wall. The Panchayat obstructed the plaintiff. The thodu that flows on the east belongs to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the thodu on the east of the property belongs to her. The plaintiff is also entitled to a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the construction of the compound wall on the western boundary of the thodu.

3. Defendant No.1, the Panchayat, resisted the suit and pleaded the following:-

4. The thodu that flows on the east of the plaint schedule property in the north-south direction is a puramboke property. It originates from Thesserikulam on the north of the property of the Panchayat and proceeds to the south and joins the ‘Valiyathodu’. The suit property and property of the defendants were originally paddy fields from which water drains through the thodu. The plaintiff started constructing a compound wall by encroaching upon the purampoke land and taking possession of a 40 year old Teak tree standing therein. The Panchayat attempted to stop the construction. It was after that the plaintiff instituted the suit with ulterior motives.

5. Defendant Nos. 2 to 9 pleaded as follows:-

They never attempted to convert the thodu into a pathway. Water from the neighbouring lands, including that of defendant Nos.2 to 9, drains out through the thodu on the east of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff attempted to reduce the width of the thodu. The plaintiff has no bonafides.

6. The evidence consists of the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and DW1. On the side of the plaintiff, Exts.A1 to A10 were marked. Exts.B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the defendants. Exts. X1 and X2 were marked as third-party exhibits. Ext.C1 series were marked as Court Exhibits.

7. The Trial Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish her right over the thodu and dismissed the suit.

8. The plaintiff challenged the decree and judgment passed by the Trial Court before the First Appellate Court by filing A.S.No.59 of 2007. The First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the trial Court.

9. After hearing both sides, this Court reformulated the substantial questions of law as follows:-

(1) Was not the issue regarding the ownership over the thodu on the eastern side of the plaint schedule property (issue No.2), in the judgment dated 14.11.2005 in O.S.No.462 of 2003 of the Munsiff’ Court, Chalakkudy (Ext.A5) collateral or incidental?

(2) Does not the finding on issue No.2 in Ext.A5 judgment operate as a bar to try the same issue in the present suit by reason of the principle of res judicata?

10. Heard Shri. T.N. Manoj, the learned counsel for the plaintiff and Smt. Dhanya P. Ashokan, the learned Counsel appearing for the defendant-panchayat.

11. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the issue as to the title of the thodu on the east of the plaint property was directly and substantially in issue in O.S.No.462 of 2003 between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. The learned Counsel submitted that the judgment in O.S.No.462 of 2003, (Ext.A5) operates as a bar to try the same issue in the present s