Short Note : 1. After analysing the entire evidence on record, the trial Court found that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land till 9th June 1958 when they were dispossessed by defendant Khemraj. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the legal representatives of deceased Khemraj preferred an appeal. Lower appellate Court upheld the finding given by the trial Court that the plaintiffs had established that they were in possession of the suit land till 9th June 1958 when they were forcibly dispossessed by Khemraj In this view of the matter, the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal. The legal representatives of deceased Khemraj have, therefore, preferred this second appeal. Held : It was then contended that the decree in S.A. No. 418 of 1962 operated as resjudicata. But the question of title to and possession of the suit property was not a matter directly and substantially in issue in the previous suit. Motilal had instituted that suit for a declaration that the decree was invalid on the ground that it was obtained by fraud and that the decree was also illegal for want of registration. These objections to the decree were ultimately overruled by this Court in S.A. No. 55 of 1964 and it was held that the decree passed in terms of the award could not be held to be a nullity on the ground that it was obtained by fraud or was illegal for want of registration. The effect of the judgment passed by this Court in S.A. No. 418 of 1962 would be that the decree Ex. D/2-A could not be held to be illegal and, therefore, it could be executed in accordance with law. The question of title or possession of any party over the suit land was thus not a matter in issue in the previous litigation between the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants was thus unable to point out that the lower appellate Court failed to take into consideration any material piece of evidence having a bearing on the question of possession of Khemraj over the suit land. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants was thus unable to point out that the lower appellate Court failed to take into consideration any material piece of evidence having a bearing on the question of possession of Khemraj over the suit land. The finding arrived at by the lower appellate Court, therefore, that the plaintiffs were proved to have been in possession of the suit land till 9th June 1958, when they were dispossessed by Khemraj, is a finding of facts which is not vitiated by any error of law. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court. Appeal dismissed.