Judgment :- The respective respondent in the above revisions filed the suits for declaration that they are entitled to use the northern side road leading to the property by way of prescriptive right and for mandatory injunction directing the revision petitioner to remove the wall put across the road on east-west. The revision petitioner was the defendant in the suits and it did not prosecute the suit and the suits were decreed ex parte. Thereafter, the decree-holders/respondents filed Execution Petitions to execute the decree passed in their favour and in those Execution Petitions, the revision petitioner filed petitions under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure raising a plea that the decree is inexecutable having regard to the judgment delivered in S.A.No.1490 of 1988 dated 14.6.2000 on the file of this court. Those applications were dismissed and aggrieved by the same, these revisions are filed by the revision petitioner. 2. Mr.Ashok Menon, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that S.A.No.1490 of 1988 had arisen out of the judgment in O.S.No.3414 of 1986 on the file of the XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras filed by the revision petitioner for a declaration that the roads are private roads and the persons who are having properties adjacent to the road, have no manner of right to use the road and prayed for declaration and injunction. That suit was dismissed and in the appeal, the suit was decreed and the defendant in that suit filed S.A.No.1490 of 1988 and in that second appeal, it was held by this court that the roads are private roads and no evidence was adduced by the appellant in that appeal that the roads were dedicated to the Panchayat by executing gift deed by the revision petitioner and therefore, the roads continue to be private roads of the revision petitioner and others cannot claim any right over the same and the second appeal was dismissed. He, therefore, submitted that having regard to the specific finding in the earlier suit, the respondents herein cannot maintain the suits for declaration that they are entitled to prescriptive right over the roads belonging to the revision petitioner as the roads have been declared to be private roads of the revision petitioner. He, therefore, submitted that having regard to the specific finding in the earlier suit, the respondents herein cannot maintain the suits for declaration that they are entitled to prescriptive right over the roads belonging to the revision petitioner as the roads have been declared to be private roads of the revision petitioner. He further submitted that as per the schedule of the plaint in all the suits, the property is a vacant land and to claim prescriptive right under section 15 of the Easements Act, there must be a building and in respect of vacant land, prescriptive right cannot be claimed. 3. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. According to me, the judgment in S.A.No.1490 of 1988 will not operate as res judicata and the respondents in these revisions are not bound by the said judgment. Admittedly, O.S.No.3414 of 1986 which gave rise to the Second Appeal No.1490 of 1988 was filed by the revision petitioner for declaration that the roads are private roads and the neighbouring land owners have no right over the same. In that suit, the revision petitioner has not impleaded all the neighbouring land owners and one person by name A.Komalavalli was the defendant in that suit and the respondents herein were not parties to the said suit. Therefore, any finding rendered in S.A.No.1490 of 1988 will not be binding on the respondents herein as they are not parties in that case. 4. Further, in S.A.No.1490 of 1988, it was only declared that the roads are private roads as claimed by the revision petitioner as the plaintiff in O.S.No.3414 of 1986. In the present suits filed by the respondents herein, they have not prayed for declaration that they are entitled to use the road as co-owner and they have not claimed any right of ownership over the road and they claimed prescriptive right to use the road to reach their lands. When a person claims easementary right over a property, he admits that he is not the owner of that property and he claims a right to use that property for the beneficial enjoyment of his property. When a person claims easementary right over a property, he admits that he is not the owner of that property and he claims a right to use that property for the beneficial enjoyment of his property. It is the specific case of the respondents herein in the suits that they are enjoying the property for more than 22 years and therefore, they have acquired prescriptive right to use the road to reach their property and that was accepted by the court and decree was passed in favour of the respondents. Therefore, the finding in S.A.No.1490 of 1988 will not have any bearing to the facts of this case as S.A.No.1490 of 1988 was emanated from O.S.No.3414 of 1986 filed by the revision petitioner for declaration and in the present suits, the respondents claim prescriptive right over the property admitting that the revision petitioner is the owner of the road. Therefore, the judgment in S.A.No.1490 of 1988 will not operate as res judicata and the respondents are not bound by the judgment. 5. Further, the application of section 15 of the Easements Act cannot be restricted to building and a reading of section 15 makes it clear that the prescriptive right can be claimed even in respect of land. As per section 15 of the Easements Act, where a right of way or any easement has been peaceably and openly enjoyed by any person claiming title thereto, as an easement, and as of right, without interruption, and for 20 years, he is entitled to claim the prescriptive right. The illustrations to section 15 also makes it clear that prescriptive right can be claimed in respect of vacant land also. Considering all these aspect, the court below has rightly dismissed the application filed by the revision petitioner under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Further, the revision petitioner has not raised the plea that section 15 of the Easements Act cannot be claimed before the court below and on that ground also, the revision petitioner is not entitled to raise the same plea before this court. Hence, I do not find any merit in the revisions. In the result, the civil revision petitions are dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.