JUDGMENT Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 10.2.2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Mau in Civil Appeal no. 13/2005 (Nurunnisha & others vs. Jameel & others) and connected cross Civil Appeal no. 14/2006 (Jameel vs. Nurunnisha & others). Only one respondent of cross Civil Appeal no. 14/2006, namely Mohd. Hasan, had preferred the present second appeal. Original suit no. 154/1996 (Jameel vs. Shamusl Haq & others) was filed for recovery of possession and damages from defendants which was partly decreed by the judgment dated 22.8.2015 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.), Mau against defendant no. 1 and defendants no. 3 to 14. This suit was dismissed for defendant no.-2 Mohd. Hasan (appellant of present second appeal). Against the judgment of trial court, civil appeal no. 13/2005 (Nurunisha & others vs. Jameel) was preferred by those defendants against whom original suit was decreed. Against same judgment another cross appeal no. 14/2006 (Jameel vs. Nurulnisha & others) was preferred by plaintiff of the original suit against that portion of judgment of trial court, by which suit against defendant no.-2 Mohd. Hasan was dismissed. Both the civil appeals no. 13/2005 and 14 of 2006 were preferred against same judgment. They were consolidated and heard together and decided by single judgment dated 10.2.2011 of Additional District Judge, Court No.-1, Mau. By this judgment, Civil Appeal no. 13/2005 preferred by defendants of the original, was dismissed; but the cross appeal no. 14/2006 preferred by plaintiff of the original suit was decreed and judgment of trial court was modified to the extent that original suit was decreed against all the defendants for recovery of possession and damages. Against this impugned judgment dated 10.2.2011 of first appellate court, present second appeal has been preferred by defendant no.-2 of original suit (respondent no. 2 of civil appeal no. 14/2006). 3. Admittedly, Hidayatullah had five sons, namely Mohd. Yusuf, Mohd. Hasan, Abul Hasan, Shamsul Hasan and Nazir Ahmad. Defendants no. 8 to 10 of original suit are sons and successors of Abul Hasan (defendant no. 3), defendants no. 5 to 7 and 14 are sons and successors of Shamsul Haq (defendant no. 1), defendants no. 11 to 13 are sons and successors of Nazir Ahmad (defendant no. 4). It is also admitted that Mohd. Yusuf (s/o Mohd. Defendants no. 8 to 10 of original suit are sons and successors of Abul Hasan (defendant no. 3), defendants no. 5 to 7 and 14 are sons and successors of Shamsul Haq (defendant no. 1), defendants no. 11 to 13 are sons and successors of Nazir Ahmad (defendant no. 4). It is also admitted that Mohd. Yusuf (s/o Mohd. Hidayatullah) had executed registered sale-deed of disputed property in favour of Zameel Ahmad (plaintiff of original suit). 4. Apart from it, admitted pertinent facts relating to this matter was that Shamsul Haq s/o Mohd. Hidayatullah had instituted original suit no. 51/1990 against Zameel Ahmad and his four brothers, namely, Mohd. Yusuf, Mohd Hasan, Abul Hasan and Nazir Ahamad (defendants no 2 to 5 respectively in that suit). Plaintiff of said suit Samsul Haq had claimed ownership of disputed property on the basis of alleged oral gift in his favour by defendant no.-2 Mohd. Yusuf and also on the basis of adverse possession and sought relief of permanent injunction against all defendants of that suit. In that suit no. 51/1990, defendants no.-1 Zamil Ahmad, defendant no.-2 Mohd. Yusuf (s/o Mohd. Hidayatullah) had filed written-statement denying the plaint averments and further pleaded that no gift was ever made by Mohd. Yusuf in favour of his brother Shamsul Haq, and have further pleaded that defendant no.-2 Mohd. Yusuf had independently purchased the disputed property by registered sale-deed dated 30.1.1989 and came in its possession as owner. His brothers, namely, plaintiff Shamsul Haq and defendants no. 3 to 5, Mohd. Hasan, Abul Hasan and Nazir Ahmad have no concerned with this property. 5. In original suit no. 51/1990, defendant no. 3 Mohd. Hasan had filed written statement with pleading that although by registered sale-deed dated 30.1.1989, which was executed and disputed property was purchased in favour of his brother Mohd. Yusuf but was sold because Mohd. Yusuf was elder brother. But joint consideration of money was paid by Mohd. Yusuf and Mohd. Hasan who came in its joint possession. Later on, this property was mortgaged and it was redeemed by plaintiff Shamsul Haq after paying required consideration. It was also pleaded that defendant no.-2 had orally gifted his share of disputed property to plaintiff Shamsul Haq. Defendant no. 4 Abul Hasan and defendant no. 5 Nazir Ahmad had not filed any written-statement in original suit no. 51/1990. 6. Later on, this property was mortgaged and it was redeemed by plaintiff Shamsul Haq after paying required consideration. It was also pleaded that defendant no.-2 had orally gifted his share of disputed property to plaintiff Shamsul Haq. Defendant no. 4 Abul Hasan and defendant no. 5 Nazir Ahmad had not filed any written-statement in original suit no. 51/1990. 6. Admittedly, trial court had afforded opportunity of hearing to the parties of original suit no. 51/1990 and thereafter dismissed the suit on its merit with specific finding that defendant no.-2 Mohd. Yusuf had purchased disputed property by registered sale-deed dated 30.1.1989 and plaintiff Shamsul Haq and defendant no.-3 Mohd. Hasan had failed to prove the case of their pleadings. 7. It is also admitted fact that against the judgment of trial court passed in original suit no. 51/1990, the civil appeal no. 5 of 1992 was preferred by Shamsul Haq, which was heard and dismissed by the judgment dated 23.3.1996 of Ist Additional District Judge, Mau. In this judgment, first appellate court was confirmed the finding of trial court with its own conclusion that defendant no.-2 Mohd. Hasan is owner of the disputed property who had sold the same to defendant no.-1 Jameel Ahmad and now Jameel Ahmad is owner of this disputed property. It is also admitted that against judgment dated 23.3.1996 passed in civil appeal no. 5/1992 by first appellate court, second appeal no. 524/1996 (Shamsul Haq vs. Jameel Ahmad) was preferred which was heard and dismissed by the judgment dated 20.9.1996 of this Court. By this judgement, High Court had confirmed the finding of two lower courts on facts. Thus for the disputed property (which is also disputed in present second appeal relating to original suit no. 154/1996 and civil appeal no. 13/2005 and civil appeal no. 14/2006) matter relating to ownership and possession has already been decided between Jameel Ahmad (respondent of present second appeal no. 475-2011 and Mohd Hasan, sole appellant of present second appeal no. 475-2011). 8. Original suit no. 154/1996 was filed by Jameel Ahmad against Shamsul Haq, Mohd. Hasan, Abul Hasan, Nazir Ahmad (sons of Hidayatullah) and their sons and family members with averment that he had purchased the disputed house from its previous owner Mohd. Yusuf (s/o Mohd. Hidayatullah) had purchased the disputed property through the registered the sale-deed dated 30.1.1989 and came in its possession as owner. Then original suit no. Hasan, Abul Hasan, Nazir Ahmad (sons of Hidayatullah) and their sons and family members with averment that he had purchased the disputed house from its previous owner Mohd. Yusuf (s/o Mohd. Hidayatullah) had purchased the disputed property through the registered the sale-deed dated 30.1.1989 and came in its possession as owner. Then original suit no. 51/1990 (Shamsul Haq vs. Jameel Ahmad) was filed on the basis of of incorrect facts which was dismissed and appeals relating to said suit was also dismissed. When the defendants had lost the litigation then they had forcibly and illegally took the unauthorized possession of disputed house in year 1996 and are not vacating the same, therefore, the decree of recovery of possession and damages @ Rs. 5,000/- per month for using occupation of said property be awarded in his favour. 9. In original suit no. 154/1996 defendant no.-1 Shamsul Haq had filed written-statement in which he had admitted the litigation relating to original suit no. 51/1990 between the parties and submitted that he had obtained title of disputed house by oral gift in his favour by Mohd. Yusuf, but his averments were not accepted by Court. He further reiterated that plaintiff Jameel Ahmad has never been in ownership of disputed property which has been in possession of defendant no.-2 Mohd. Hasan. 10. Defendants no. 2 to 8 (Mohd. Hasan, Abul Hasan, Nazir Ahmad, their sons & sons of Shamsul Haq) had filed separate joint written-statement in which they had also reiterated same facts as were mentioned in written statement of defendant no.-1 Shamsul Haq and pleaded that plaintiff Jameel Ahmad is not owner or in possession of disputed property on the basis of registered sale-deed dated 30.1.1989 executed by Mohd. Yusuf and it is the fact that Mohd. Yusuf had orally gifted the disputed property to other defendant no.-2 Mohd. Hasan who is in possession of it. 11. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, the civil Judge (S.D.) Mau had decreed the original suit of plaintiff Jameel Ahmad by its judgment dated 22.8.2005 and against the defendants, except defendant no.-2 Mohd. Hasan, and directed them to handover possession of disputed property to plaintiff Jameel Ahmad and also pay damages @ Rs. 300/- per month. In this judgment, trial court had given specific finding that plaintiff Jameel Ahmad is owner of disputed property, which was purchased by him from its previous owner Mohd. Hasan, and directed them to handover possession of disputed property to plaintiff Jameel Ahmad and also pay damages @ Rs. 300/- per month. In this judgment, trial court had given specific finding that plaintiff Jameel Ahmad is owner of disputed property, which was purchased by him from its previous owner Mohd. Yusuf by registered sale-deed dated 30.1.1989 and then he came in its possession. The trial court had also held that judgment of earlier decided original suit no. 51/1990 is binding on parties. Trial court had also held that all defendants except Mohd Hasan (defendant no.-2) are in unauthorized occupation of disputed property. With these findings, trial court had decreed the suit against all defendants except defendant no.-2 Mohd. Hasan. 12. Against the judgment dated 22.8.2005 of trial court Civil Appeal no. 13/2005 (Nurunnisha and others vs. Jameel and others) was preferred on behalf of defendants no. 1 and 3 to 14 of original suit against plaintiff Jameel Ahmad. Against same judgment of trial, another first Civil Appeal no. 14/2006 was preferred by sole plaintiff Jameel Ahmad against all the defendants of the original suit. Both the appeals were decided by the judgment dated 10.2.2011 of Additional District Judge, Court No.-1 Mau in favour of plaintiff of original suit. Thus the cross civil appeal no. 14/2006 was allowed and original suit was decreed against all defendants including defendant no.-2 Mohd. Hasan, after dismissing the civil appeal no. 13/2005. In this judgment, first appellate court had decreed the original suit for recovery of possession against all defendants and directed them to pay damages @ Rs. 5000/- per month for unauthorized use and occupation of disputed property. Against this impugned judgment dated 10.2.2011, present Second Appeal has been preferred only by Mohd. Hasan, the defendant no.-2 of original suit. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that lower courts had decided the matter of ownership of disputed property on the basis of earlier judgment passed in original suit no. 51/1990 and its appeals and held that those judgments are binding on parties, but no formal issue regarding plea of res-judicata was framed by trial court. He further submitted that the findings in original suit no. 51/1990 was for the parties who are defendants in present original suit no. 154/1996 and are contesting the claim of plaintiff, therefore, those findings cannot be accepted as res-judicata between the parties. He further submitted that the findings in original suit no. 51/1990 was for the parties who are defendants in present original suit no. 154/1996 and are contesting the claim of plaintiff, therefore, those findings cannot be accepted as res-judicata between the parties. He further submitted that issue on res-judicata should have been decided as preliminary issue and findings regarding plea of res-judicata given by lower courts is erroneous. Therefore, appeal should be admitted for being allowed. 14. The contentions of learned counsel for the appellant's side were refuted by learned counsel for the respondents who submitted that trial court had framed issues on all the disputed points including the ownership of plaintiff Jameel Ahmad, the plea of adverse possession of defendants, the effect of decision of original suit no. 51/1990 etc. and thereafter decision was passed by the trial court on merits on those points. He further submitted that in spite of finding that plaintiff Jameel Ahmad is owner and came in possession of disputed property and was unauthorizedly evicted, the trial court had erroneously considered the possession of defendant no.-2/ appellant Mohd. Hasan is not unauthorized and passed its judgment. The only finding of trial court was erroneous on point of nature of possession of appellant Mohd. Hasan, therefore, first appellate court had rightly rectified this error after confirming the finding on the point of ownership of plaintiff/respondent Jameel Ahmad and non existence of any ownership right of any of the defendants including appellant Mohd. Hasan. He contended that there has been concurrent findings of facts of two lower courts that only the plaintiff /respondent Jameel Ahmad is owner of disputed property who is entitled for its possession and defendants have no right of title in this property; therefore the judgment of first appellate court is not erroneous in view of concurrent finding of facts. Therefore this appeal should be dismissed. 15. As mentioned above during statements of fact, the original suit no. 51/1990 was filed by Shamsul Haq claiming himself to be the sole owner of this property. This suit was filed by him against Jameel Ahmad (plaintiff of original suit no. 154/1996) and his all brothers including Mohd. Yusuf and Mohd. Hasan. In said original suit plaintiff Shamsul Haq and defendant Mohd. Hasan has taken same pleas regarding alleged purchase of disputed property in the name of Mohd. This suit was filed by him against Jameel Ahmad (plaintiff of original suit no. 154/1996) and his all brothers including Mohd. Yusuf and Mohd. Hasan. In said original suit plaintiff Shamsul Haq and defendant Mohd. Hasan has taken same pleas regarding alleged purchase of disputed property in the name of Mohd. Yusuf, the redemption of alleged mortgage only by Shamsul Haq and the alleged oral gift by Mohd. Yusuf in favour of Shamsul Haq and Mohd. Hasan, who had contested the said suit against Jameel Ahmad and Mohd. Yusuf. That suit was decided on the basis of their contest against their pleadings and in favour of Jameel Ahmad and Mohd. Hasan with specific finding that earlier owner of the whole of the disputed property was Mohd. Yusuf who had sold this property by registered sale-deed dated 30.1.1989 in favour of Jameel Ahmad who came in its possession as owner. These findings of judgment of trial court of original suit no. 51/1990 were confirmed by the judgment of Civil Appeal no. 5/1992 and Second Appeal no. 524/1996. Thus the said matter on facts had been finally decided between those contesting parties; therefore the judgments relating to original suit no. 91/1990 and its appeals which had become final and binding on its parties and their successors in interest, who were defendants of original suit no. 154/1996. 16. So far this contention of learned counsel for the appellants regarding non framing of issue relating to res-judicata is concerned, from perusal of record it is found unacceptable. In OS No. 154/1996, trial court had specifically framed issue no.-5 which was that as to whether OS No. 51/1990 Shamsul Haq vs. Jameel Ahmad & others, had been contested between the parties regarding ownership of disputed property, in which ownership and possession Shamsul Haq was not found; if so whether the defence of defendants (of OS No. 154/1996) is barred by principles of estoppel. The contents of this issue no.-5 makes it clear that it relates to principle of res-judicata as well as bar of defence of defendants including present appellant Mohd. Hasan on doctrine of estoppel and acquiescence. This issue was specifically dealt with by trial court after appreciating evidences and was decided against all the defendants including Mohd. Hasan and in favour of plaintiff Jameel Ahmad holding his the sole ownership. Hasan on doctrine of estoppel and acquiescence. This issue was specifically dealt with by trial court after appreciating evidences and was decided against all the defendants including Mohd. Hasan and in favour of plaintiff Jameel Ahmad holding his the sole ownership. The language of issue no.-5 framed by trial court is regarding principles of res-judicata and its intent was unambiguous and clear. Parties had no confusion over it and they had adduced evidences in that regard and also placed their arguments for the same. Thereafter trial court had given finding that judgments and findings of OS No. 51/1990, which had become final, is binding on its parties; therefore said issue is decided in favour of plaintiff Jameel Ahmad. Trial court had also specifically held that in these circumstances, defence of defendants is barred by principles of estoppel and acquiescence. In absence of any misunderstanding or confusion, no prejudice was caused to parties of the dispute on points of principles of res-judicata as well as on applicability of doctrine of estoppel and acquiescence. Therefore, contentions of learned counsel for the appellant Mohd. Hasan in that regard is found unacceptable. 17. During hearing of first appeal no. 13/2005 and cross civil appeal no. 14/2006, disputed points were raised by the parties including the point of res-judicata. The parties including the appellants placed their argument on this point. The first appellate court had framed three points of determination, which relate to firstly, whether the judgment of OS No. 51/1990 has effect of res-judicata, secondly, whether the plaintiff Jameel Ahmad is owner of disputed property and, thirdly, as to whether the defendants are in unauthorized occupation of disputed property. After framing these points of determination and considering the arguments of parties on these points, first appellate court had decided them in favour of plaintiff Jameel Ahmad and against all the defendants including respondent Mohd. Hasan. The first appellate court had specifically held that judgment of OS No. 51/1990 has effect of res-judicata against appellant Mohd. Hasan. This finding is found correct and acceptable without any error, therefore it is confirmed. Accordingly, this contention of learned counsel for the appellant Mohd. Hasan is rejected that on point of res-judicata appellant was not afforded opportunity of hearing by the lower courts. 18. Hasan. This finding is found correct and acceptable without any error, therefore it is confirmed. Accordingly, this contention of learned counsel for the appellant Mohd. Hasan is rejected that on point of res-judicata appellant was not afforded opportunity of hearing by the lower courts. 18. On facts, it is pertinent to mention that pleading of the present appellant in OS No. 51/1990 as well as in OS No. 154/1996 was the admission of the fact that disputed property was purchased through registered sale-deed in the name of only Mohd. Yusuf, who had also executed sale-deed of this property in favour of Jameel Ahmad. Although Mohd. Hasan had pleaded that this sale-deed was not effective and Shamsul Haq was in ownership of disputed property, but these facts were found not proved either in OS No. 51/1990 or in the judgments of OS No. 154/1996. The judgment against the defendant no.-1 and defendants no. 3 to 14 of OS No. 154/1996 had been concurrent on facts and had become final, as these defendants had not filed any second appeal. There has been concurrent finding of fact in judgments of OS No. 51/1990 and in its first civil appeal no. 5/1992 and second appeal no. 524/1996 that Jameel Ahmad had purchased the disputed property from its sole previous owner Mohd. Yusuf and came in its possession as owner. This finding was confirmed by the concurrent finding of OS No. 154/1996 and its related civil appeals no. 13/2005 and 14/2006. The findings of facts in this regard is not only concurrent but also appears to have been based on proper appreciation of evidences on all points, after appreciation and scrutiny of pleadings, evidences and arguments. Those findings are found correct and acceptable from perusal of records. Such an apparently acceptable and non-erroneous findings cannot be treated as infirm or perverse on facts. So such findings cannot be interfered in second appeal by re-appreciation of evidences. 19. Since it has been found that plaintiff-respondent Jameel Ahmad is owner of disputed property who has been deprived of his possession and it has been held that appellant Mohd. Such an apparently acceptable and non-erroneous findings cannot be treated as infirm or perverse on facts. So such findings cannot be interfered in second appeal by re-appreciation of evidences. 19. Since it has been found that plaintiff-respondent Jameel Ahmad is owner of disputed property who has been deprived of his possession and it has been held that appellant Mohd. Hasan or any other defendants have no right or title in disputed property and the possession of defendants is illegal and unauthorized; therefore, this conclusion of lower courts is found correct that plaintiff is entitled to recover its possession from defendants and also entitled to receive the damages for its unauthorized occupation and user. The first appellate court had enhanced the rate of damages awarded by trial court, but had given its sound reasoning when it had held that it had came in evidence that disputed house can be given on rent of Rs. 5000/- to 6000/- per month. Therefore, finding on point of rate of damages is also not exorbitant or erroneous. 20. The only dispute between the parties relate to fact as to whether respondent Jameel Ahmad is sole owner of disputed property and has right to recover its possession or not. This is not a question of law but is a question of fact that had been decided firstly during the litigation relating to OS No. 51/1990 and its first appeal and second appeal by concurrent findings of fact, and thereafter again in present matter relate to OS No. 154/1996 and its first appeals no. 13/2005 & 14/2006 by concurrent finding of fact. The ownership and possession of disputed house can be decided on the basis of evidences only, as has been done by the lower courts in two sets of litigation. Each time courts had independently decided these points and in second set of litigation relating to OS No. 154/1996 this matter was decided on the basis of facts as well as considering the effect of the judgment of litigation relate to OS No. 51/1990 and their appeals which had been decided in favour of respondent Jameel Ahmad. In fact, such dispute relating to ownership and possession of disputed house is only a dispute relating to facts. Also, as held earlier, the judgments of earlier litigation relate to OS No. 51/1990 are also binding on parties including the appellant Mohd. Hasan. 21. In fact, such dispute relating to ownership and possession of disputed house is only a dispute relating to facts. Also, as held earlier, the judgments of earlier litigation relate to OS No. 51/1990 are also binding on parties including the appellant Mohd. Hasan. 21. For the reasons discussed above, there is no substantial question of law involved in this matter. The dispute relating to ownership and possession of disputed property has been rightly decided against appellant. The impugned judgment of lower appellate court in this regard is found correct, which is hereby confirmed. 22. In view of the above, this second appeal is dismissed.