https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169912 A claim to an easementary right for water flow used in prawn-fishing was barred by res judicata where the same issue had already been directly and substantially decided between the same parties in a connected suit. The earlier decree in the respondents' suit had attained finality because it was not appealed, and that final determination could not be reopened in the second appeal arising from the other suit. A common judgment disposing of connected appeals did not erase the separate finality of the earlier decision. The result was that the fishing-related easement claim could not be re-agitated, while the separate agricultural water-right clarification remained unaffected. en-us Thu, 15 Apr 1976 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 May 2015 15:45:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169912 A claim to an easementary right for water flow used in prawn-fishing was barred by res judicata where the same issue had already been directly and substantially decided between the same parties in a connected suit. The earlier decree in the respondents' suit had attained finality because it was not appealed, and that final determination could not be reopened in the second appeal arising from the other suit. A common judgment disposing of connected appeals did not erase the separate finality of the earlier decision. The result was that the fishing-related easement claim could not be re-agitated, while the separate agricultural water-right clarification remained unaffected. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 15 Apr 1976 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169912