JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal was admitted on 21.10.1993 on the substantial question of law as regards, whether the suit is barred by limitation. 2. It is urged by the learned counsel for the respondents that all the controversies involved in the present second appeal are covered by the decision of this Court delivered on 17.07.2006 in Second Appeal No. 305 of 1993 and the decision given in Second Appeal No. 541 of 2007 on 06.10.2016. 3. Dr. Anjan De, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant does not dispute that the substantial question of law framed by this Court while admitting the matter stands concluded by the said decisions. He has, however, urged that one more point arises in this second appeal. According to him, the sale certificate was in the name of Gayaprasad Gourishankar and the person by such name was not in existence, but it was Gayaaprasad Shivramprasad. 4. While disposing of the Second Appeal No. 541 of 2007, this Court has already taken into consideration the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as by the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court has held that the contention regarding identity of Gayaprasad Tiwari as son of Shivramprasad is not at all disputed. Apart from this, the question raised purely involves adjudication on facts, which does not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal is dismissed.