Judgment :- This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.07.1999 in A.S.No.125 of 1990 on the file of Additional Sub-ordinate Judge, Cuddalore, dismissing the Plaintiffs suit for partition of 1/4th share and separate possession. Unsuccessful Plaintiff in O.S.No.67 of 1983 is the Appellant. For convenience parties are referred as per their array in the Original suit. 2.Plaintiff and Defendants 1 to 4 are sons and daughters of late Sheik Abdul Sahib. The parties are related as under: 3.Case of the Plaintiff is that item Nos.1 to 3 of suit property belong to Chand Bi and after her death her property devolved upon her husband Sheik Abdul Sahib, children, the Plaintiff and the Defendants 1 to 4. Item Nos. 4 and 5 belong to Sheik Abdul Sahib and after his death Plaintiff and Defendants 1 to 4 are entitled to Item Nos.4 and 5. Item No.6 also belong to Sheik Abdul Sahib but he purchased the same in the name of 2nd Defendant as benami. Plaintiff and Defendants 1 to 6 are entitled for share as per Muslim Law. But the 2nd Defendant is claiming right over certain properties based on the settlement deed dated 21.01.1948. The Plaintiff alleged that no possession was given to the 2nd Defendant based on Ex.B6 settlement deed. According to Plaintiff, plaintiff and Defendants 1 to 4 are entitled to 1/4th share and Defendants 3 and 4 are entitled to 1/8th share Plaintiff has filed the suit for partition of his 1/4th share. 4.The Defendants 1,2, 3 and 5 resisted the suit contending that Sheik Abdul Sahib purchased item Nos.1 and 3 under Ex.B2 and B3 in the name of his wife Chand Bi and Chand Bi was only benamidar. Item Nos.4 and 5 was purchased by Sheik Abdul Sahib under Exs.B4 and B5, 6th item was purchased in the name of 2nd Defendant under Ex.B7. Case of Defendants is that Sheik Abdul Sahib has executed Ex.B6 settlement deed (21.01.1948) in favour of the 2nd Defendant settling item Nos.1,2,4 and 5. In respect of item No.3 Sheik Abdul Sahib executed Ex.B8 sale deed (02.01.1957) in favour of the 2nd Defendant. Since 2nd Defendant was minor at that time Sheik Abdul Sahib was maintaining the entire properties. After 2nd Defendant became major he took possession of the entire properties. In respect of item No.3 Sheik Abdul Sahib executed Ex.B8 sale deed (02.01.1957) in favour of the 2nd Defendant. Since 2nd Defendant was minor at that time Sheik Abdul Sahib was maintaining the entire properties. After 2nd Defendant became major he took possession of the entire properties. 2nd Defendant earlier filed suit in O.S.No.264/77 for declaration and permanent injunction and the said suit was decreed in favour of the 2nd Defendant in respect of the Item Nos.1 to 5. Since title of 2nd Defendant was already upheld in earlier suit, plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of partition. 5. On the above pleadings relevant issues were framed. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court held that item Nos. 1 to 3 was purchased by Sheik Abdul Sahib out of his own money and in the name of his wife Chand Bi. In respect of Ex.B6 settlement deed, trial court held that the document being an ancient document presumption under Section 90 of Indian Evidence Act has to be raised and held Ex.B6 as a valid document. In so far as item No.3, trial court held that Sheik Abdul Sahib had sold the same to the 2nd Defendant under Ex.B8 sale deed. Referring to the recitals in the sale deeds, trial court held that the 2nd Defendant is entitled to item Nos. 1 to 5 and dismissed the Plaintiffs suit in respect of item Nos.1 to 5. In so far as item No.6, trial court passed the decree for partition and Plaintiffs 1/4th share. 6.Being aggrieved, both Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant have preferred appeals in A.S.No.125/1990 and A.S.No.131/1990 confirming the judgment of trial court Lower Appellate Court dismissed both the appeals. Lower Appellate court inter-alia held that the judgment in O.S.No.264/1977 has become final and binding upon the Plaintiffs. 7.At the time of admission of the Second Appeal following substantial question of law was framed: Whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in holding that the decision rendered in O.S.No.264 of 1977 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi was a bar to the claim of the Plaintiffs 1/4th share to the suit items 1 to 5? 8.Challenging the concurrent findings of courts below learned counsel for the Appellant Mr.R.Mohan, contended that benami nature of transaction in favour of Chand Bi was not proved by positive evidence. 8.Challenging the concurrent findings of courts below learned counsel for the Appellant Mr.R.Mohan, contended that benami nature of transaction in favour of Chand Bi was not proved by positive evidence. The learned counsel further submitted that father had no right to deal with item Nos.1 to 3 and settle the same in favour of the 2nd Defendant. The learned counsel further submitted that in the absence production of original of Ex.B6, trial court was not right in raising presumption under section 90 of Evidence Act. The learned counsel further submitted that when the Plaintiff was exonerated from the suit in O.S.No.264/1977, lower appellate court was not justified in holding that the judgment in O.S.No.264/1977 would operate as res-judicata and the judgment of the courts below are perverse and liable to be set aside. 9.Inspite of service of notice, the Respondents have not entered appearance. Mr.C.Sanjai Babu, was appointed as counsel through High Court Legal Services Committee to make submissions on behalf of the Respondents. 10.Heard Mr.C.Sanjai Babu, the learned counsel for Respondent submitted that upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and having regard to the findings in the earlier suit O.S.No.264 /1977, courts below rightly upheld Ex.B6 settlement deed. Learned counsel further submitted that in respect of item Nos. 1 to 5, 2nd Defendants title was already declared in O.S.No.264/1977 and the conclusions in the earlier suit have become final and cannot now be challenged. The learned counsel further submitted that the concurrent findings of the courts below cannot be interfered. 11.Admittedly, suit property relates to six items. There is no dispute in so far as 6th item in which courts below passed decree for partition of Plaintiffs 1/6th share. Chand Bi purchased item Nos.1 and 2 properties under Ex.B2 sale deed dated 14.06.1938, and she purchased item No.3 under Ex.B3 (dated 10.01.1922). Courts below recorded the concurrent findings that item Nos.1 to 3 were purchased by Sheik Abdul Sahib out of his own money in the name of his wife Chand Bi. Item Nos.4 and 5 were purchased by Sheik Abdul Sahib in his own name under Ex.B4 (dated 06.06.1930) and Ex.B5 (dated 26.03.1938) in respect of item Nos.1,2,4 and 5 Sheik Abdul Sahib had executed Ex.B6 settlement deed (21.01.1948). Ex.B6-Settlement deed (dated 21.01.1948) being ancient document trial court raised presumption under Section 90 of I.E. Act. Item Nos.4 and 5 were purchased by Sheik Abdul Sahib in his own name under Ex.B4 (dated 06.06.1930) and Ex.B5 (dated 26.03.1938) in respect of item Nos.1,2,4 and 5 Sheik Abdul Sahib had executed Ex.B6 settlement deed (21.01.1948). Ex.B6-Settlement deed (dated 21.01.1948) being ancient document trial court raised presumption under Section 90 of I.E. Act. Under Section 90 I.E.Act presumption of genuiness may be raised if ancient document is produced from proper custody. The learned counsel for Appellant contended that when original of Ex.B6 was not produced and only certified copy of Ex.B6 was produced presumption under Section 90 of I.E. Act cannot be invoked. No doubt that the presumption under Section 90 does not apply to a certified or private copy, though 30 years old. But if a foundation is laid for admission of secondary evidence under Section 65 of I.E. Act, the signature authenticating the copy under Section 90 is presumed to be genuine. 12.The arguments assailing the findings of the trial court in raising presumption under Section 90 I.E. Act is unsustainable. In his evidence DW1 has explained that original of EX.B6 was produced in the earlier suit O.S.No.264/1977 and therefore he was not in a position to produce the original. When the reason for non-production of original of Ex.B6 was satisfactorily explained, it cannot be said that the trial court erred in raising the presumption under Section 90 of I.E. Act. 13.The learned counsel for the Appellant forcibly contended that benami nature of Exs.B2 and B3 were not established by positive evidence and in the absence of any such evidence, courts below ought to have held that Sheik Abdul Sahib had no right to deal with item Nos.1 to 3, by settling them on 2nd Defendant. In the earlier suit in O.S.No.264/1977, it has been held that the properties purchased in the name of Chand Bi and 2nd Respondent are benami transctions. On such findings it was held that item Nos.1 to 5 belong to the 2nd Defendant, who was Plaintiff in O.S.No.264/1977. The appeal preferred in A.S.No.182/1981 (marked as EX.A3) was also dismissed. Though the present Plaintiff has been excluded from the earlier suit O.S.No.264/1977, the judgment in O.S.No.264/1977 being a judgment in rem. The findings in the earlier suit is a relevant fact to be reckoned with. The appeal preferred in A.S.No.182/1981 (marked as EX.A3) was also dismissed. Though the present Plaintiff has been excluded from the earlier suit O.S.No.264/1977, the judgment in O.S.No.264/1977 being a judgment in rem. The findings in the earlier suit is a relevant fact to be reckoned with. 14.The learned counsel for the Appellant contended that in the earlier suit O.S.No.264/1977 the present Plaintiff being exonerated, judgment in O.S.No.264/1977, at the most would be binding only between the parties to the said suit and it would not be binding upon the present Plaintiff. As pointed out earlier, O.S.No.264/1977 was filed by the 2nd Defendant for declaration of his title and permanent injunction in which the suit was decreed declaring rights of the 2nd Defendant. Declaration of 2nd Defendants right and title in O.S.No.264/1977 is the judgment in rem which furnishes conclusive proof of the facts adjudicated. The judgment is not only binding upon the parties, but as well as against the strangers. The judgment in O.S.No.264/1977 being a relevant fact, courts below have rightly taken note of the same. 15.The Lower Appellate Court has held that the benami nature of transaction was already decided in O.S.No.264/1977 and held that the judgment would operate as res-judicata. The learned counsel for the Appellant contended that present Plaintiff being exonerated in O.S.No.264/1977, lower appellate court erred in saying that the judgment in O.S.No.264/1977 would operate as res-Judicata. The judgment to operate as res-judicata the dispute must have been substantially in issue arising between the same parties. Since the present Plaintiff was exonerated from the earlier suit O.S.No.264/1977, lower appellate court was not right in saying that the judgment in O.S.No.267/1977 would operated as res-Judicata against the Plaintiff. But such incorrect finding of Lower Appellate Court would not in anyway vitiate its conclusions. 16.Though Plaintiff was not a party in the earlier suit O.S.No.264/1977, the judgment in the said suit is a relevant factor and the courts below have rightly taken note of the same and the approach of the courts below does not suffer from any perversity. 17.Item No.3 was purchased by Sheik Abdul Sahib in the name of his wife under Ex.B3 (10.01.1922) and was sold to the 2nd Defendant under Ex.B8(20.01.1957). In Ex.B8 sale deed Sheik Abdul Sahib has stated that item No.3 absolutely belongs to him. 17.Item No.3 was purchased by Sheik Abdul Sahib in the name of his wife under Ex.B3 (10.01.1922) and was sold to the 2nd Defendant under Ex.B8(20.01.1957). In Ex.B8 sale deed Sheik Abdul Sahib has stated that item No.3 absolutely belongs to him. Referring to the recitals in Ex.B8 sale deed and B6 settlement deed courts below held that item Nos.1 to 3 though purchased in the name of Chand Bi, Sheik Abdul Sahib was the real owner. That Sheik Abdul Sahib held the property in his own right is also evident from Ex.B12-Adangal standing in the name of Sheik Abdul Sahib. 18.In so far as item No.6 was purchased in the name of 2nd Defendant Ex.B3 (15.03.1948), the 2nd Defendant was held to be a benamidar in respect of item No.6. observing that Sheik Abdul Sahib is the real owner of item No.6 courts below ordered partition of Plaintiffs 1/4th share in item No.6. 19.The only substantial question of law formulated for consideration is, whether the judgment in O.S.No.264/1977 was a bar to the claim of the Plaintiffs 1/4th share to the suit items 1 to 5. Though the judgment in O.S.No.264/1977 as such would not operate as a bar to the Plaintiffs suit, the judgment in O.S.No.264/1977 being a judgment in rem is a relevant fact to be reckoned with. Upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence courts below recorded concurrent findings. The concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered unless it is shown to be contrary to evidence on record. As held by the Supreme Court in (2000) 7 SCC 702 , Dilboo vs. Dhanraji, that where both the courts below have correctly appreciated the evidence and arrived at the correct conclusion, reappreciation of evidence by the High Court and recording contrary conclusion is error not only of law but of facts also. Exercising jurisdiction under 100 C.P.C concurrent findings of fact recorded by courts below cannot be interfered. 20.In the result, the judgment of the Lower Appellate court in A.S.No.125 of 1990 on the file of Additional Subordinate judge, Cuddalore (arising out of O.S.No.67 of 1983 on the file of District Munsif, Kallakurichi.) is confirmed and the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs.