D. G. KARIA, J. ( 1 ) THE present petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against decision dt. September 26 1983 rendered in Revision Application No. TEN. B. A. 734 of 1982 by Gujarat Revenue Tribunal confirming the decision of the appellate authority i. e. Deputy Collector Dabhoi in Tenancy Appeal No. 43 of 1981. ( 2 ) THE respondent claimed to be a tenant in respect of the land S. No. 310 admeasuring Acre 0 Gunthas situated in Madodhar in Vaghodiya Taluka of Vadodara District. The respondent filed application on July 27 1981 under Sec. 70 (b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Tenancy Act) before the Mamlatdar and A. L. T. Dabhoi stating that he was cultivating the aforesaid land since 1951 till that date and was in occupation of the said land. Mamlatdar therefore initiated necessary inquiry and by his order dt. September 7 1981 dismissed the claim of the respondent. Mamlatdar held that in the earlier Tenancy Case No. 2137 of 1977 which was decided on June 15 1977 that the respondent on his own admission was not cultivating the land and his name was entered in revenue records wrongly. Respondent being aggrieved by said decision of the Mamlatdar preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 43 of 1981 before Deputy Collector Dabhoi. The Deputy Collector by his order dt. January 25 1982 allowed the appeal setting aside the decision of the Mamlatdar and A. L. T. The Deputy Collector held that relevant revenue records did show that the respondent was occupying and cultivating the land in question and that his statement recorded by the Mamlatdar on June 7 1977 was contrary to the revenue records. The Deputy Collector held that in that view of the matter case was not barred by principles of res judicata. ( 3 ) THE petitioner preferred aforesaid revision before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal against the said order of the Deputy Collector. The Tribunal by its impugned judgment dismissed the revision application and confirmed the decision of the Deputy Collector. Hence the present petition. ( 4 ) MR. J. M. Patel learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Mamlatdar had initiated inquiry under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act in the year 1977. The Tribunal by its impugned judgment dismissed the revision application and confirmed the decision of the Deputy Collector. Hence the present petition. ( 4 ) MR. J. M. Patel learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Mamlatdar had initiated inquiry under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act in the year 1977. The respondent-tenant stated before the Mamlatdar in the said inquiry that he was not cultivating the land in question and that his name as the tenant on the revenue record should be deleted. Accordingly Mamlatdar by his order dt. June 15 1977 held that though there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and there was clear recital about it in relevant revenue record; however the respondent did not admit as the tenant and as such the inquiry is dropped. It was suo motu inquiry by the Mamlatdar under Sec. 70 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. Mr. Patel therefore submitted that the impugned decision by the Tribunal confirming the view of the Deputy Collector that the respondent was held to be the tenant in respect of the land in question was against principles of res judicata According to Mr. Patel as the issue regarding tenancy was determined in earlier proceedings he was not open for the authorities below to consider the same question again. Mr. Patel in support of his submission relied upon the case of Nathubhai Rambhai vs. Bhaidas Ranchhoddas (Since decd. by his heirs) Shashikant Bhaidas Dhudhwala and Ors. 20 GLR 206. ( 5 ) MAIN ground urged by Mr. Patel in support of the present petition is on the basis of doctrine of res judicata. On the principles underlined Sec. 11 of Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 11 of the Code provides that no court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised and has been heard and finally decided by such Court. It is well settled that in order to decide the question whether subsequent proceeding is barred by res judicata it is necessary to examine question with reference to the (i) forum or the competence of the Court (ii) parties and their representatives (iii) matters in issue (iv) matters which ought to have been made ground for defence or attack in the former suit and (v) the final decision. In the instant case it is true that there is a decision of the Mamlatdar rendered in suo motu inquiry on June 15 1977 that the respondent was not the tenant in respect of the land in dispute. However in the earlier proceedings there was no issue as to tenancy of the respondent in respect of the land in dispute. That earlier decision based only on the admission of the respondent though name of the respondent was clearly reflected as tenant of the land in relevant revenue record. Thus the issue of tenancy was not pleaded nor was urged. It was also not finally decided by the Mamlatdar as to how the respondent was not the tenant in respect of the land though his name was shown in the relevant revenue records as the tenant of the land. No such inquiry was made. Only on the basis of so called statement of the respondent a decision was arrived at. In this peculiar facts and circumstances of the case I am afraid that doctrine of res judicata cannot be made applicable. ( 6 ) IN order to attract principles of res judicata matter in issue is the right claimed by one and denied by other. Claim of right in its very inception depends upon proved facts and application of the relevant law. Matter in issue may be an issue of fact an issue of law or one of mixed fact and law. An issue of fact or an issue of mixed fact and law decided by a competent court is finally decided between the parties and cannot be reopened between them in another proceeding. The claim of right depends upon proof of facts and application of law relevant thereto. When it is said that a previous decision is res judicata it is meant that the right claimed has already been adjudicated upon and cannot again be placed in contest between the same parties. The claim of right depends upon proof of facts and application of law relevant thereto. When it is said that a previous decision is res judicata it is meant that the right claimed has already been adjudicated upon and cannot again be placed in contest between the same parties. Even though decision on a pure question of law unrelated to facts which gives rise to any right cannot be deemed to be a matter in issue and as such res judicata when the law is applied to facts which are the foundation of rights and decided the decision is res judicata. It is a composite decision. The decision on law cannot be dissociated from decision on facts on which the right is founded. In other words when the finding on an issue is based on a certain view of the law that view of the law as an abstract proposition and dissociated from the actual matter in issue will not be res judicata so as to be applicable to all future disputes between the same parties which may give rise to the applicability of the same abstract question of law. The object of the rule of res judicata is not to fasten upon the parties special principles of law as applicable to them inter se but to ascertain their rights and the facts upon which these rights directly and substantially depend; and to prevent the ascertainment from being nugatory by precluding the parties from re-opening or re-contesting that which has been finally decided. Res judicata is a rule of procedure and it cannot change the law of the land as applicable to specific parties by decisions of courts. In view of this legal position submission of Mr. Patel cannot be accepted that the impugned decision was barred by principles of res judicata. ( 7 ) AS aforesaid Mr. Patel placed reliance upon 20 GLR p. 406 (supra ). Then question was whether the landlord was suffering from physically disability on April 1 1957 or not was a question concluded by the necessary implication on the second occasion and was essentially a pure finding of fact and the said order operates as res judicata. Thus it was purely a question of fact concerning in that case. Therefore decision relied upon by Mr. Patel is of no assistance to the petitioner. ( 8 ) MR. Thus it was purely a question of fact concerning in that case. Therefore decision relied upon by Mr. Patel is of no assistance to the petitioner. ( 8 ) MR. Patel also relied upon the case of Gopal Ganu Wagale vs. Shri Nageshwardeo Patas Abhishekh Anusthan Trust Patas AIR 1978 SC p. 347 The said case was with regard to the nature of jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India and the finding of revenue authorities can be disturbed if manifest error is shown to have committed. It was held that the High Court was justified in interfering with the findings. In the facts and circumstances of the present case ratio laid down in the case of Gopal Ganu does not help the petitioner in any way. ( 9 ) NO other point is urged on behalf of the petitioner. ( 10 ) IN the result the petition fails and is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Petition Dismissed. .