A sues B for trespass on his land. B alleges the existence of a public right of way over the land, which A denies. The existence of a decree in favour of the defendant in a suit by A against C for a trespass on the same land in which C alleged the existence of the same right of way is
relevant, but it will not operate as estoppels
irrelevant, but it may be considered
a conclusive proof that the right of way exists
relevant, but not a conclusive proof that the right of way exists
Answer is Wrong!
Answer is Right!
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019
– A previous decree concerning the same public right of way in a suit between one party and a third party is relevant in a subsequent suit.
– However, such a previous decree is only admissible as evidence and does not conclusively prove the existence of the right; other evidence is still required to establish the fact.
– Estoppel would apply between the parties to the *first* suit (A and C) or their representatives regarding the specific issue decided, but not automatically bind B in a separate suit (A vs B).