Plaintiff is estopped from seeking relief being aware of facts of earlier suit.

1. The defendants in O.S.No.584 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsif, Satyamangalam, are the appellants in the second appeal. The respondent herein filed the suit for declaring his easementary right of cart-track to take carts, cattle and men over ABC pathway as shown in the plaint plan to reach his land from the main road on the west and for restraining the defendants/appellants and their men by means of a permanent injunction from interfering with his peaceful enjoyment of such easement.

2. The case as set out in the plaint was as follows: The cart-track ABCDE marked in red colour in the plaint plan runs along the southern border of the appellants’ land western and northern sides of his land and proceeds further eastwards. The said cart-track has a width of 10 feet and has been in existence for more than 50 years prior to the filing of the suit. The villagers of Kondi Bommanur lying east to the suit property had been using the cart-track to walk, take carts, cattle and men to and from the main road on the west. The cart-track had been created long long ago and had been used as a public road. A canal was dug across the cart-track east to his land about 15 years prior to the suit and thereafter, the villagers in general could not take carts from the village to the main road, but are using it to walk and take cattle. But, the land owners west of the canal including himself had been continuing the user of the cart-track west of the canal to reach their land from the road on the west as before. This right to use the ABCDE cart-track has been acquired as a prescriptive right. He is also entitled to right of easement by lost grant also. Only appellants 1 to 3 are denying the rights and threatening to demolish the pathways portion BC and annexure the portion to their cultivable land. It is under these circumstances the suit had to be filed.

3. The first appellant filed a written statement and the same was adopted by the other appellants. The respondent is a close relative of one Chinnamara Naicker, who was the plaintiff in an earlier suit O.S.No.997 of 1981. He was a witness in the said suit, which was for an identical relief and was refused by the court. The present suit is barred by res judicata. The cart-track shown in the plaint plan has been put up by the first appellant for his use to reach his land. The respondent has no right whatsoever in the cart-track. He has not been taking his carts as alleged in the plaint. Formerly there was a pathway in existence to reach the respondents land on the northern side of the appellants land. It was also demarcated in the revenue records passing through S.F.Nos.114, 115, 116 and 117 and proceeding to Kanjanaickenpalayam, now Kondi Bommanur. At the request of the villagers a pathway was formed all along S.F.Nos.124/1, 124/2 and 122/7 to reach the same village. The first appellant had formed the cart-track in his patta land all along S.F.No.224/2 for his convenient use and enjoyment and permitted the villagers to walk along the cart-track and use it as a pathway to reach kanjanaickenpalayam. Subsequently S.M.I.F. Canal was formed in the land belonging to the respondent and bunds were put up with the result the villagers could not go and use the pathway except S.F.No.322/7. After the formation of the canal and the Panchayat Board road on the southern road, the villagers including the respondent started using the Panchayat Board road to reach their land and the village. Except the period between 1970 and 1972 the suit cart-track was not used as a pathway by the villagers including the respondent. Even now the first appellant has no objection to permit the respondent to use the cart-track as pathway to walk, to take cattle and men to reach his lands, but he cannot take his carts. No such right was ever used or exercised by him at any time. The easementary right alleged by him is an invention. He has no right of easement by prescription nor does he have right of easement by lo