JUDGMENT S.P. Khare, J. 1. This is a second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. The following substantial questions of law were formulated by order dated 14.3.1991 at the time of admission of this appeal - (1) "Whether the Court below failed to consider the material evidence on record" ? (2) "Whether the findings of the Court below are perverse" ? 2. The facts relevant for the decision of the questions referred above are that Ramnath was Bhumiswami of Khasra Nos. 165, 166, 188, 144, 145, 149, 150, 163, 300, 304, 313, 314, 336, 338, 341, 353, 373, 378, 507, 522 and 536 (total 21) area 15.407 hectares of village Bilha, Tahsil Gunor, district Panna. Plaintiff Halkai was his brother. He filed the civil suit for possession of these lands. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The judgment and decree of the trial Court have been set aside in first appeal. The claim of the plaintiff was that he is the nearest heir of Ramnath. On the other hand, defendant No. 1 Rajrani claimed that she is the widow of Ramnath. Her case was that Ramnath had married her after the death of his first wife. It was also pleaded that defendant No. 2 Smt. Chandrakumari alias Chanda Bai is daughter of Rajrani through Ramnath. The first appellate Court has held after appreciation of the documentary and oral evidence on record that Rajrani was wife of Ramnath and defendant No. 2 Smt. Chandrakumari alias Chanda Bai is daughter of Ramnath through Rajrani. This finding of fact is based on proper appreciation of evidence. There is no legal infirmity in the finding. Rajrani lived for several years with Ramnath as his wife and Chanda Bai was born to her through Ramnath. It was suggested by plaintiff Halkai that Rajrani is actually wife of Gokul and defendant No. 2 Chandrakumari alias Chanda Bai is daughter of Gokul. That evidence has not been believed. Gokul is living in the village. He has not been examined as a witness by the plaintiff to rebut the evidence of Rajrani (DW-1). 3. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that in the order dated 27.2.1973 (Ex.P-3) in M.J.C. No. 2 of 1973 it has been held by the Additional District Judge, Panna while granting succession certificate in respect of an amount of Rs. 3. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that in the order dated 27.2.1973 (Ex.P-3) in M.J.C. No. 2 of 1973 it has been held by the Additional District Judge, Panna while granting succession certificate in respect of an amount of Rs. 10,600/- that Halkai is the heir of Ramnath and Rajrani is not his wife. It is further contended that this is a judgment in rem and binding on all and Rajrani was a party to those proceedings and therefore the finding in that case constitutes res-judicata in the present case. It is also pointed out that even if the Court in succession case was a Court of limited jurisdiction its finding on the issue decided by it would be res-judicata as per Explanation VIII to Section 11 C.P.C. After considering these contentions this Court is of the opinion that the finding in that case does not constitute res-judicata in the present case. There was no specific plea of res-judicata in the plaint. No such plea was raised before the trial Court or the first appellate Court. There was no issue on this point. The subject matter of dispute in the succession case under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 was the amount of Rs. 10,600/-. The lands in dispute in the present case were not the subject matter of dispute in that case. 4. Section 387 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 provides that no decision under this Part upon any question of right between any parties shall be held to bar the trial of the same question in suit or in any other proceeding between the same parties, and nothing in this Part shall be construed to affect the liability of any person who may receive the whole or any part of any debt or security, or any interest or dividend on any security, to account therefor to the person lawfully entitled thereto. It is well settled that the proceedings for grant of succession certificate are summary proceedings. In view of Section 387 any decision in such proceeding in respect of the rights do not preclude the parties to litigate the same in a regular suit. A decision in a proceeding for the grant of succession certificate is not conclusive and the same question may be tried in any other suit or proceeding between the same parties. In view of Section 387 any decision in such proceeding in respect of the rights do not preclude the parties to litigate the same in a regular suit. A decision in a proceeding for the grant of succession certificate is not conclusive and the same question may be tried in any other suit or proceeding between the same parties. A finding as to relationship in proceedings for the grant of certificate is not a bar to trial of the same question between the same parties. It has been held by the High Court of Kerala in V.K. Kamalam Vs. Panchali Amma ( AIR 1988 Ker 265 ) that a finding in the proceedings for the grant of succession certificate that the respondent is the wife of testator cannot operate as res-judicata in a subsequent litigation. In the succession case the Court has only to ascertain as to who is entitled to the certificate. The Court in a succession case is not competent to grant the relief which can be claimed by the parties in a regular civil suit. In Anjanalah Vs. Nagappa ( AIR 1967 AP 61 ) it has been held that any decision given in a succession case is not res-judicata. If a person has any right, the grant of a certificate or any decision given in those proceedings would not be a bar to him to establish his right. The same view has been taken in Nevilee Vs. Dolly Mehta ( AIR 1976 Mad 138 ). 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has cited the case of Shiv Narain Vs. RaJI ( AIR 1982 Raj 119 ) in which it has been held that when the question of relationship of parties has been decided in a previous probate proceeding, the same question cannot be agitated between the same parties in a subsequent suit. But in the present case the judgment (Ex.P-3) is not of the probate Court. That was an order passed under Chapter-X of the Indian Succession Act for grant of succession certificate. 6. Explanation VIII to Section 11 C.P.C. provides that an issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res-judicata in a subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised. 6. Explanation VIII to Section 11 C.P.C. provides that an issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res-judicata in a subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised. The question of title to the lands in dispute in the present case can be decided by the Civil Court. It could not be decided by the succession Court. That Court was not a Court even of limited jurisdiction for deciding the question of title in the present suit. If the former Court was not competent to try the subsequent suit as it had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute relating to lands any finding arrived at by that Court would not be res-judicata in the subsequent suit before a Court which alone is competent to decide it. The jurisdiction of the two Courts must be concurrent as regards subject matter. The judgment in the succession case is relevant so far as the amount of money involved therein is concerned but it is not final so far as the relationship of Ramnath with Rajrani is concerned. 7. Further, in succession case defendant No. 2 Chanda Bai, the daughter, was not a party. Any finding recorded in that case about her status is not binding upon her. In the present case she can prove that she is daughter of Ramnath. Therefore, the finding of the first appellate Court on the point that Rajrani is wife of Ramnath and Chanda Bai is his daughter through her cannot be reversed in the second appeal. There is definite evidence to this effect that Rajrani lived with Ramnath for several years as his wife, cohabited with him and gave birth to Chanda Bai. Presumption of marriage can be raised from long cohabitation. The testimony of Rajrani (DW-1) has been found trustworthy by the first appellate Court on the point that she was married to Ramnath and lived with him as such and gave birth to Chanda Bai. That is not perverse. It is not open to interference in second appeal. 8. In this appeal an application under Order 23, Rule 3 CPC was filed as a compromise petition. However, by the order dated 13.2.1992 that compromise has not been accepted. 9. That is not perverse. It is not open to interference in second appeal. 8. In this appeal an application under Order 23, Rule 3 CPC was filed as a compromise petition. However, by the order dated 13.2.1992 that compromise has not been accepted. 9. After perusal of the evidence on record, it is found that the first appellate Court has considered all the material aspects. It cannot be said that any evidence in favour of the plaintiff has been ignored. The finding cannot be said to be perverse. The two questions of law framed above are answered in the negative. 10. This appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed