JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - This is.plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the land marked by letters A, B, C, D in the plaint and also for restraining the defendants from raising any construction over the disputed land or from cutting any branches of the neem tree in suit. The trial Court had decreed the suit. On appeal by the defendants the lower appellate Court disagreed with the trial Court and dismissed the suit filed by the appellant. Hence the second appeal. 2. Shortly stated the plaint case was that the disputed land lies towards the west of the chabutara and door of the plaintiffs house and right from the time of his ancestors the land was being used as the sahan of the plaintiff's house. The 'nabdan' of the plaintiffs' house was also flowing towards west of the land in dispute. There were besides two neem trees planted by the father of the plaintiff over the said land. In addition there were bamboo clumps. Suit No. 528 of 1955 between Jaheer Khan and Mahoo Khan was filed in respect of the same land which was decided in favour of Mahob Khan and the plaintiffs and it was held that Jaheer Khan and others had no concern with the same. Ikbal Khan and Khalid Khan are the sons of Jaheer Khan and they have instigated the defendants to raise constructions over the disputed land in spite of the decree passed in that suit. 3. The suit was contested by the , defendants. They claimed that the land in suit belonged to them. The previous suit was not in respect of the land which is involved in the present case. Pleas of bar of limitation and under-valuation etc. were also raised. 4. The trial Court was influenced mainly by the decree passed in suit No. 528 of 1955 and holding that the plaintiffs' claim had been upheld in that suit, the present suit was also decreed. 5. On appeal, the lower appellate Court on a careful and exhaustive consideration of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the land involved in the present suit is towards the west whereas the land which was subject matter of the previous suit was towards north. 5. On appeal, the lower appellate Court on a careful and exhaustive consideration of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the land involved in the present suit is towards the west whereas the land which was subject matter of the previous suit was towards north. It further found that the land involved in the two suits was different. It then turned to the other documentary as well as oral evidence existing on the record and came to the conclusion that the land belonged to the defendant and not to the plaintiff. The suit of the plaintiff appellant was accordingly dismissed. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decree the plaintiff have filed the second appeal. Sri Faujdar Rai submitted two points before me for my consideration. The first point urged was that the trial Court has found that at least a part of the land involved in the previous suit No. 528 of 1985 is also involved in the present suit and consequently the decree passed in that suit barred the defence of the respondent. I find no merit in this contention. The finding of the lower appellate Court is that the land involved in the present suit is quite different from that which was the subject matter of the previous suit. This finding of the appellate Court is based on various facts and circumstances established on the record which were all relevant and pertinent to the controversy. The lower appellate Court has for instance pointed out that the land which is involved in the present suit is towards the west of the plaintiff's house whereas that which was the subject matter of the previous suit was towards the north. It has also referred to the findings recorded by the appellate Court in the previous suit as well as the map prepared by the Amin in that suit. It is on a consideration of this and other material that the appellate Court has come to categorical finding that the land involved in the present suit is different from that in suit No. 528 of 1955. This finding sets aside by necessary implication, the finding of the trial Court that part of the disputed land is covered by the decree passed in the previous suit. This finding sets aside by necessary implication, the finding of the trial Court that part of the disputed land is covered by the decree passed in the previous suit. Moreover whether the disputed land or any part of it is covered by the decree passed in the previous suit is essentially a question of fact and the same not having been demonstrated to be vitiated by any error of law, this Court cannot review the same in a second appeal. 7. It was next contended by Sri Faujdar Rai that the lower appellate Court has found that the 'nabdan' of the plaintiff's house was flowing over the disputed land. That being so, the lower appellate Court has committed an error in dismissing the plaintiff appellants' suit in toto. The argument is untenable. The suit of the plaintiff was founded on the assertion that disputed land belonged to the plaintiff appellant. The flow of 'nabdan' was cited merely as a circumstance in support of the plaintiffs' claim that he was the owner of the disputed land. The suit was not based on a claim of any easementary right. Further, there is no complaint that flow of 'nabdan' was being obstructed by the defendant respondent by some construction or otherwise. That being so the suit was rightly dismissed by the lower appellate Court. 8. It may also be mentioned that on a consideration of oral and documentary evidence on the record the lower appellate Court has further found that the defendants respondents are the owners in possession of disputed land. The suit of the appellant was, therefore, liable to be dismissed in any case. 9. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed but I make no order as to costs.