Bombay High Court
Pravin Baban Khedekar etcversusPRAMOD SADASHIV KALE
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- N JAMADAR
Holding
The second appeal is dismissed as the appellate decree is final and no substantial question of law remains.
Summary
The appellants challenged a district court decree dated 20 November 2025 that upheld an earlier trial‑court order restraining them from obstructing the respondent’s construction of a compound wall, by preserving a 6‑ft pathway for ingress and egress. The dispute originated from a 2009 suit (RCS No.967) where the appellant claimed a 10 ft × 46 ft easement over a lane, which the trial court had affirmed in 2012 but the appellate court modified in 2015, limiting the right to a pathway only. The appellants argued that the appellate decree operated as res judicata and that the lower courts erred by granting a fresh injunction. The trial court rejected the res judicata defence, holding that the appellate order only restrained obstruction of the pathway, not the wider easement, and therefore allowed the injunction against the appellants. The High Court held that the appellate decree had become final, the appellants had no substantive question of law to raise, and consequently dismissed the second appeal. As a result, the interim application was also disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the decree of the appellate court in RCA No.221 of 2013 operates as res judicata to preclude the trial court’s injunction.
- Whether the appellant is entitled to a 10 ft × 46 ft easement or only a 6‑ft pathway as per the sale deed of 1977.
- Whether the lower courts erred in granting a fresh injunction despite the final appellate decree.
Subjects
- easement
- res judicata
- property law
- injunction
- compound wall
- pathway right
Judgment
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SANTOSH
SUBHASH
SUBHASH KULKARNI 8-SA119-2026.DOC
KULKARNI Date: 2026.03.13
20:26:01 +0530
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO. 119 OF 2026
Pravin Baban Khedekar and anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Pramod Sadashiv Kale …Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1744 OF 2026
Mr. Ganesh Misal, a/w Rohit Chavan, Sandesh D. and Vishal
Kale, for the Appellants.
Mr. Nachiket Khaladkar, a/w Dinesh Nagarkar, for the
Respondents.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATED: 4th MARCH, 2026
Oral Order:-
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants.
2. This second appeal is directed against a judgment and
decree passed by the learned District Judge dated 20 th
November, 2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellants
- Defendants against a judgment and decree passed by the trial
Court dated 13th March, 2024, thereby restraining the appellant
from causing obstruction to the plaintiff – respondent from
constructing compound wall from western side of the suit
property by leaving 6 ft. broad pathway for the ingress and
egress of the defendants, came to be dismissed.
1/4
8-SA119-2026.DOC
3. There is a prelude to this litigation. The appellant No.1
had instituted a suit, being RCS No.967 of 2009, against the
respondent herein seeking to purportedly restrain him from
causing obstruction to the appellant from the use of the
pathway and in exercise of the easementary right over the lane
admeasuring 10 ft. X 46 ft. By a judgment and decree dated
10th December, 2012, the trial Court restrained the respondent –
defendant therein from obstructing the Appellant No.1 and his
family members from using the suit lane for egress and ingress
to the suit property and from causing any nuisance or
annoyance by placing any material on the suit lane.
4. The respondent herein preferred an appeal before the
District Court. By a judgment and decree dated 3 rd October,
2015, the learned Judge, Pune, modiCed the decree and
restrained the defendant – respondent herein from obstructing
the plaintiff’s right of pathway from the land of the defendant –
respondent. However, the claim of the plaintiff – appellant No.1
that he has easementary right over the lane admeasuring10 ft.
X 46 ft. was dismissed.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the
judgment and decree in RCS No.967 of 2009, as modiCed by the
Appellate Court by the judgment and decree in RCA No.221 of
2/4
8-SA119-2026.DOC
2013 dated 3rd October, 2015 operated as res judicata and the
courts below have committed an error in passing the impugned
decree.
6. The trial Court was of the view that the bar of res judicata
did not operate as the Appellate Court had restrained the
defendant – respondent herein from causing obstruction to the
ingress and egress of the appellant No.1 from the suit lane.
Thus the trial Court restrained the defendants – appellants
herein from obstructing the plaintiff from constructing the
compound wall from the western side of the suit property.
7. In the sale deed of the year 1977, under which the right of
way came to be reserved for the predecessor-in-title of the
appellant, the width of the way was not speciCed. In these
circumstances, the rights of the appellants stood crystallized to
pathway only. If the appellant No.1 was aggrieved by the
rejection of the claim of easementary right over an area
admeasuring 10 ft. X 46 ft., by judgment and decree in RCA
No.221 of 2013, it was incumbent upon the appellant No.1 to
assail the said decree. As the said decree has attained Cnality
and by the impugned judgment and decree, the Defendants –
Appellants right of ingress and egress through 6 ft. wide
3/4
8-SA119-2026.DOC
pathway is protected, no substantial question of law arises for
consideration.
8. The second appeal, thus, stands dismissed.
9. In view of dismissal of the second appeal, IA/1744/2026
stands disposed.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
4/4
Checking your session…