1976 (4) TMI 216 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court restores District Court decision, clarifies water rights, bars prawn-fishing under res judicata

LONANKUTTY Versus THOMMAN

LONANKUTTY Versus THOMMAN - 1976 AIR 1645, 1976 (0) Suppl. SCR 74, 1976 (3) SCC 528 Issues Involved:1. Prescriptive easement rights for prawn-fishing and agricultural purposes.2. Application of the principle of res judicata.Summary:Prescriptive Easement Rights:The litigation concerns the right of two adjacent landowners to catch prawns on their respective lands. The appellant owns Survey No. 673, which is water-logged and used for prawn-fishing. The respondents own adjacent lands, including Survey No. 672, and claim a prescriptive easement to take water from the appellant's land for both fishing and agricultural purposes. The appellant objected, leading to two civil suits: one by the appellant for an injunction against the respondents (Civil Suit No. 666 of 1954) and one by the respondents for an injunction against the appellant (Civil Suit No. 5 of 1957).The trial court decreed the appellant's suit partly, granting an injunction against the respondents for prawn-fishing but upholding their easementary right for agricultural purposes. The respondents' suit was dismissed concerning fishing rights but upheld for agricultural purposes. Both parties filed cross-appeals, which were dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, confirming the trial court's decrees.Application of Res Judicata:The respondents filed a Second Appeal in the High Court against the decree in the appellant's suit. The High Court remanded the appeal for fresh hearing, rejecting the appellant's plea of res judicata. On remand, the Subordinate Judge dismissed the appeal, confirming the earlier decision. The respondents filed another Second Appeal, which was allowed by the High Court, granting them rights for prawn-fishing as well. The appellant's plea of res judicata was again rejected.The Supreme Court held that the issue of respondents' right to the flow of water for fishing purposes was barred by res judicata. The decision of the District Court in the respondents' suit, which was not appealed against, became final and could not be reopened in the Second Appeal arising out of the appellant's suit. The High Court's assumption that the two suits were disposed of by a common judgment was incorrect. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in allowing the respondents' appeal and set aside its judgment, restoring the District Court's decision.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the High Court was set aside, restoring the District Court's judgment. The respondents' right to the flow of water for agricultural purposes from 15th Meenam to 15th Vrischigam every year was clarified to remain unaffected.