Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This is plaintiffs appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity the Code), challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below holding that the parties have earlier litigated with regard to the same property. A suit was filed by the father of the plaintiff-appellant, which was dismissed and present suit filed by his son has been held to be barred by the principles of res judicata. It has further been found that by changing the boundaries of the property an attempt has been made to show that it is a different property and both the Courts have found that the property is the same one. Referring to the statement made by the plaintiff-appellant Ajit Kumar, it has been concluded that he had given boundaries different than the one disclosed in the plaint. No evidence has been brought on record to show that the suit property with the alleged boundaries is existing at the spot. Some imaginary boundaries have been described in the plaint so as to wriggle suit from the findings recorded in the earlier suit to avoid the application of the principles of res-judicata. PW-4 Shri Ram Niwas, Draftsman, has also stated that the boundaries were described by him in the site plan Ex.P-3 as per the desire of the plaintiff-appellants. In the earlier suit, the stand of the predecessor of the plaintiff-appellant was that they had become owner by adverse possession whereas the stand of the defendant-respondents was that the property has been allotted to their father, which was comprised in Plot No. 62. A copy of the judgment and decree has been placed on record as Ex.DA and DB, holding that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff-appellant were neither the owner nor in possession of the suit property. 2. After hearing the learned Counsel, I am of the considered view that no interference of this Court is warranted in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below holding that the matter has been adjudicated in the earlier suit and any new suit at the instance of the successor-in-interest would be barred by the principle of res-judicata. It is well settled that no person can be vexed twice on the same cause of action otherwise rights of the parties can never be settled. It is well settled that no person can be vexed twice on the same cause of action otherwise rights of the parties can never be settled. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere as no question of law would arise for determination under Section 100 of the Code, The appeal is wholly misconceived. Dismissed.