JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J.:- This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 12.11.2002 passed by learned Additional District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, in Title Appeal No. 13 of 2002. By the impugned judgment learned Additional District Judge upheld the judgment and decree dated 22.04.2002, passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Dharmanagar in Title Suit No. 02 of 1978. 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. D.K. Biswas for the appellants and learned counsel, Mr. P. Roy Barman for respondents. 3. Suresh Chandra Dutta, the predecessor of the present appellants(hereinafter mentioned as plaintiff), filed Title Suit No. 02 of 1978 in the Court of Munsiff(now Civil Judge, Junior Division), Dharmanagar against Kamini Kanta Debnath(since deceased), the predecessor of respondent Nos. 1 to 6(hereinafter mentioned as defendant) and two others, namely Babur Ali(defendant No. 2) and Rasid Ali(defendant No. 3), seeking declaration of title and confirmation of possession in the suit land described in Schedule-II of the plaint, which is a part of the land described in Schedule-I of the plaint. 4. The plaintiff, inter alia, contended that one Tazmul Ali by a registered deed dated 09.12.1950 sold out 8 kani of land of jote No. 60 together with another plot of 5 kani 9 ganda 2 kara and 10 dhur of land of jote No. 140 to the plaintiff, and accordingly the plaintiff became the owner in possession of 13 kani 9 ganda 2 kara and 10 dhur of land within mouja-Deocherra and the suit land is a part and parcel of that purchased land of the plaintiff. 5. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the suit land described in the Schedule of the plaint was wrongly recorded in the names of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in survey plot No. 141 of khatian No. 826 instead of his khatian Nos. 44 and 42. It is also contended by the plaintiff that defendant No. 1, Kamini Kanta Debnath, the predecessor of the present respondents on the strength of a Title deed dated 29.08.1963 executed by defendant No. 3 in his favour in respect of 4 kani 10 ganda of land of Jote No. 60, obtained a decree in respect of the land as against defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in Title Appeal No. 08 of 1969, judgment and decree dated 18.05.1971 for recovery of khas possession in respect of the present suit land for which the plaintiff prayed for declaration of his right, title, interest and possession and also injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. 6. Kamini Kanta Debnath, the predecessor of the respondents contested the suit by filing written statement inter alia contending that the defendant purchased the suit land from defendant No. 3 and that defendant instituted Title Suit No. 40 of 1968 against defendant Nos. 2 and 3 for khas possession of the land described in the Schedule of that plaint which consists land of plot No. 141 and the suit was decreed in his favour in Title Appeal No. 8 of 1969. In that case Suresh Ch. Dutta, the plaintiff of this suit was defendant No. 3 and Suresh Ch. Dutta did not challenge the decree passed in TA No. 8 of 1969, and therefore this suit is barred by res judicata and also barred by limitation. 7. The trial Court, as I find, formulated six issues and after recording evidence, on the question of maintainability held that the suit was clearly barred by res judicata and therefore decided all the issues against the plaintiff. 8. Aggrieved, the substituted plaintiffs preferred Title Appeal No. 13 of 2002 but the appeal was also dismissed. 9. While arguing the case learned counsel, Mr. Biswas appearing for the appellants has submitted that the decision of the trial Court and the appellate Court, both on the ground of res judicata as well as on the ground of limitation, was not correct but while going through the records learned counsel fairly admitted that since the predecessor of the appellants, i.e. late Suresh Chandra Dutta did not challenge the judgment of TA No. 08 of 1969, the trial Court judgment that the suit is barred by res judicata has got logic for such finding. 10. I have meticulously gone through the records. Suresh Chandra Dutta(since deceased), the plaintiff, instituted the suit seeking declaration of right, title and confirmation of possession and injunction in the land described in Schedule II of the plaint which is a part of the Schedule I of the plaint. 10. I have meticulously gone through the records. Suresh Chandra Dutta(since deceased), the plaintiff, instituted the suit seeking declaration of right, title and confirmation of possession and injunction in the land described in Schedule II of the plaint which is a part of the Schedule I of the plaint. It is clearly contended by the plaintiff that the suit land is recorded in Khatian No. 826, Dag No. 141 of Mouja-Deocherra. The plaintiff also contended that the suit land measuring 1 kani 8 ganda 1 kara 2 kranta and 8 dhur wrongly recorded in khatian No. 826, plot No. 141 in the name of Babur Ali and Rasid Ali. It is an admitted position that Kamini Kanta Debnath, the predecessor of the respondents instituted Title Suit No. 40 of 1968 against Babur Ali and Rasid Ali praying for recovery of possession of the land described in the Schedule of that suit which consists the land of plot No. 141 of khatian No. 826 and that suit was decreed in TA No. 8 of 1969 in favour of Kamini Kanta Debnath and in that suit Suresh Chandra Dutta, the predecessor of the appellants joined as defendant No. 3 and contested the suit. So the suit instituted by the plaintiff is clearly barred by res judicata since the issue and subject matter involved has already been decided in an earlier suit in which the plaintiff Suresh Chandra Dutta since deceased was a party. 11. The trial Court, therefore rightly decided the issue that the suit was barred by res judicata, and hence I find no merit in the appeal, and accordingly the appeal stands dismissed. 12. Send back the LCRs along with a copy of the judgment.