JUDGMENT : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. 1. Heard Mr. B. Banerjee, learned Senior counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 19.05.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nalbari in Title Appeal No. 1/2004 affirming the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Nalbari in Title Suit No. 53/1998. 3. By an order passed on 02.09.2004, this second appeal was admitted to be heard on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the learned Courts below were justified in holding that the suit filed by plaintiff is hit by principle of res-judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and as such the impugned judgment suffers from perversity.” 4. Plaintiff filed the suit registered as T.S. No. 53/1998 praying for right, title, interest and khas possession in respect of Schedule ‘kha’ land measuring 2 Katha 11 Lecha in Dag No. 1087 and land measuring 1 Bigha 2 Katha in Dag No. 1099, totaling 1 Bigha 4 Katha 11 Lecha in Patta No. 262 of Village-Kandhbari, Mouza-Madhyam Barkhetri; for a preliminary partition and also for declaration that a registered sale-deed No. 373/1986 executed by the principal defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in favour of the principal defendant No. 1 is illegal. 5. Case of the plaintiff as projected in the plaint was that the plaintiff as well as his two brothers had purchased ‘kha’ Schedule land by a registered sale deed No. 4164 dated 21.07.1966 from principal defendant No. 2. The sale was objected by the defendant Nos. 3 and 4. However, on 23.02.1978, vide registered Deed of Relinquishment No. 1539, they conferred right, title and interest in favour of the plaintiff. Further case projected is that principal defendant No. 1 tress passed into Schedule ‘ga’ land on 10.01.1991, which is a part of Schedule ‘kha’ land, in respect of which, the plaintiff learnt that the defendant No. 1 had obtained mutation. 6. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff had earlier filed a title suit being T.S. No. 45/1993 in the Court of Munsiff, Nalbari praying for right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit land, which is the ‘kha’ Schedule land, for injunction against the defendant No. 1 etc. 6. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff had earlier filed a title suit being T.S. No. 45/1993 in the Court of Munsiff, Nalbari praying for right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit land, which is the ‘kha’ Schedule land, for injunction against the defendant No. 1 etc. The said suit was dismissed for default on 15.02.1997. The principal defendant No. 1 filed a title suit being T.S. No. 2/1995 in respect of land in Schedule ‘ga’ and from the aforesaid suit, it was learnt by the plaintiff that the principal defendant No. 1 had purchased land from defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 on 16.10.1986 by registered sale deed No. 373/86. 7. The defendant No. 1 filed a written statement stating about the purchase of land by him. It was stated that while he was in possession of the land, he was evicted from 3 Katha 6 Lecha of land purchased by him and thereafter, the plaintiff had constructed a tin house, 2 thatched houses, dug a fishery and planted trees. As a consequence thereof, defendant No. 1 had filed a title suit being T.S. No. 2/95 in the Court of Civil Judge, Nalbari. The plaintiff of the present case had contested the suit and finally the suit of the defendant No. 1 (plaintiff of T.S. No. 2/95) was decreed on 29.03.1997. The present plaintiff also filed an appeal against the said decree and the appeal came to be dismissed on 11.06.1997. The plea of res-judicata was specifically taken by the defendant No. 1 in his written statement. 8. Mr. Banerjee, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the issue of res-judicata was taken up as a preliminary issue and by an order dated 21.06.2000, the learned trial court had held that T.S. No. 53/1998 is barred by the principles of res-judicata in view of the earlier suit filed by the defendant No. 1 being T.S. No. 2/1995, in which decree was passed in favour of the defendant No. 1 on 29.03.1997. The defendant No. 1 had preferred an appeal being T.A. No. 8/2000 which was dismissed by the learned appellate court on the ground that it was an interlocutory order. Thereafter, by the impugned judgment of the learned trial court, decision in respect of issue No. 3 relating to res-judicata was reiterated. 9. Mr. The defendant No. 1 had preferred an appeal being T.A. No. 8/2000 which was dismissed by the learned appellate court on the ground that it was an interlocutory order. Thereafter, by the impugned judgment of the learned trial court, decision in respect of issue No. 3 relating to res-judicata was reiterated. 9. Mr. Banerjee has not as such disputed that the suit land in T.S. No. 2/1995 and the suit land in T.S. No. 53/1998 is same. He has submitted that decision rendered by the learned trial court in T.S. No. 2/1995 is illegal as the issue relating to right, title and interest in respect of the plaintiff's title was not at all considered despite the fact that his sale deed was prior in point of time. Mr. Banerjee has prayed that liberty may also be granted to the present appellant to challenge the decree passed in T.S. No. 2/1995. 10. Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that against the decree dated 29.03.1997 passed in T.S. No. 2/1995, the plaintiff of T.S. No. 53/1998 had preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed. It is submitted by him that the defendant had preferred T.A. No. 8/2000 in view of the learned trial court not dismissing the suit consequent upon a finding recorded in issue No. 3 that the suit was hit by the principles of res-judicata. By placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2014) 5 SCC 75 , the learned counsel submits that even an erroneous decision attracts the doctrine of res-judicata between the parties and therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that suit filed by the plaintiff being T.S. No. 53/1998 is hit by principle of res-judicata in view of the determination of the lis between same parties in respect of the very same subject matter. 11. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 12. Going by the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, as also from the materials on record, it is found that the subject-matter of T.S. No. 53/1998 is same with the subject-matter of T.S. No. 2/1995. The defendants had exhibited the decree in T.S. No. 2/1995 as Ext-ga. 12. Going by the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, as also from the materials on record, it is found that the subject-matter of T.S. No. 53/1998 is same with the subject-matter of T.S. No. 2/1995. The defendants had exhibited the decree in T.S. No. 2/1995 as Ext-ga. It also appears that the plaintiff had preferred an appeal against the decree dated 29.03.1997 in T.S. No. 2/1995 which was registered as T.A. No. 11/1997 in the Court of learned District Judge, Nalbari. The order dated 11.06.1997 in T.A. No. 11/1997, Ext-ka, indicates that the appeal was returned for re-filing because the same was accompanied by a defective affidavit. 13. The substratum of the argument of Mr. Banerjee is primarily founded on the premise that the decree passed in T.S. No. 2/1995 is wholly not sustainable in law. The argument of Mr. Banerjee has no merit. 14. In Subramanian Swamy (Supra), the Apex court had stated as follows: “39. The scope of application of doctrine of res-judicata is in quest ion. The literal meaning of res is everything that may form an object of rights and includes an object, subject-matter or status and res-judicata literally means a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgments. Res-judicata pro veritate accipitur is the full maxim which has, over the years, shrunk to mere res-judicata, which means that res-judicata is accepted for truth. The doctrine contains the rule of conclusiveness of the judgment which is based partly on the maxim of Roman jurisprudence interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it concerns the State that there be an end to law suits) and partly on the maxim nemo debet bis vexari pro una et ea dem causa (no man should be vexed twice over for the same cause). 40. Even an erroneous decision on a question of law attracts the doc trine of res-judicata between the parties to it. The correctness or otherwise of a judicial decision has no bearing upon the question whether or not it operates as res-judicata. (Vide: Sha Shivraj Gopalji vs. Edappakath Ayissa Bi and Mohanlal Goenka vs. Benoy Kishna Mukherjee)” 15. The principle of res-judicata is based on the need of giving a finality to judicial decisions. The correctness or otherwise of a judicial decision has no bearing upon the question whether or not it operates as res-judicata. (Vide: Sha Shivraj Gopalji vs. Edappakath Ayissa Bi and Mohanlal Goenka vs. Benoy Kishna Mukherjee)” 15. The principle of res-judicata is based on the need of giving a finality to judicial decisions. An erroneous decision also attracts the doctrine of res-judicata between the parties to it and the correctness or otherwise of a judicial decision has no bearing upon the question whether or not it operates as res-judicata. When a question of fact or a question of law has been decided between the parties in one suit or proceeding and the decision is final, neither party will be allowed in a future suit or proceeding between the same parties to canvass the matter again. This is, in essence, the principle of res-judicata. 16. In view of the above discussions, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs. 17. Registry will send back L.C.R.