JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. This second appeal has been preferred by the defendants/appellants assailing the judgment and order dated 01.02.2013 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Rudrapur in Civil Appeal No. 44 of 2008, titled as Sangatha & others v. Herindrajeet Singh, as well as the judgment and order dated 19.7.2008 rendered by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, in Civil Suit No. 83 of 1999. 2. Facts of the case are that the Original Suit No. 83 of 1999 was preferred pertaining to Khasra No. 7/1/1 area 5.312 hectare, whereof the plaintiff claimed himself to be the Bhumidhar with transferable rights, as the nature of land was of Class 1-Ka. In that suit, he sought the decree of injunction against all the defendants restraining them from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. 3. Written statement in the suit was filed by the defendant nos. 1 to 5 wherein it was averred that these defendants along with 40 others are continuing their possession over the property, as aforementioned, for last 14-15 years and this Khasra No. 7/1/1 is the part of Khasra No. 7/1 which is a government land of Class-IV category. It was pleaded that all the defendants have got residential lease on a part of such land whereas on the remaining share, they are doing the agricultural work. Besides, they also stated that earlier too, an original suit (Nand Lal v. Col. Jagwant Singh) had also been adjudicated in the Civil Court pertaining to the same land, therefore, the present suit is barred by the principle of res judicata, nonetheless, no such particulars of the original suit were disclosed in the averments of written statement. 4. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Khatima tried the suit and decreed the same on 19.7.2008 granting injunction against all the defendants in respect of the land of Khasra No. 7/1/1 area 5.312 hectares, belonging to Class-1Ka category. Defendants preferred an appeal which too was dismissed on merits by the Second Additional District Judge, Rudrapur, as afore-stated. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have preferred the instant second appeal. 5. Defendants preferred an appeal which too was dismissed on merits by the Second Additional District Judge, Rudrapur, as afore-stated. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have preferred the instant second appeal. 5. At the time of admission, this Court had formulated the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the courts below have erred in law by not considering that the suit, being a subsequent suit with regard to the same property between the same parties, is barred by the principles of res judicata?” 6. Since, there was nothing on the record to manifest the pleadings of the earlier Original Suit No. 90 of 1986, hence the learned Counsel for the appellant was asked to file the certified copy of the previous litigation between the same parties. Such copy (excluding the map of plaint) of O.S. No. 90 of 1986 as well as the written statement filed in that suit has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit of Mr. Nand Lal, who was and is one of the defendants in both the litigations. 7. Undoubtedly, the parties are more or less the same but the question does arise whether both the suits viz. O.S. No. 90/1986 and O.S. No. 83/1999 relate to the same property? 8. It has been highlighted by Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent that the Original Suit No. 90 of 1986 was concerned with the land of Class-IV category (land belonging to Government/Gaon Sabha occupied by a person without ownership rights and consent of Gaon Sabha) situated in Village Gotha, Tehsil Sitarganj and the area of such land was 136 Bigha and 17 Biswas, whereupon the plaintiff Col. Jagwant Singh or his father was in possession since 12th July, 1949 till the date of filing the suit and this fact has been pleaded in paragraph no. 1 of such plaint. On the other hand, the land of O.S. No. 83 of 1999 related to Khasra No. 7/1/1 area 5.312 hectares located in village Gotha, Tehsil Sitarganj and the nature of that land was Class 1-Ka category (Bhumidhari land with transferable rights). 9. 1 of such plaint. On the other hand, the land of O.S. No. 83 of 1999 related to Khasra No. 7/1/1 area 5.312 hectares located in village Gotha, Tehsil Sitarganj and the nature of that land was Class 1-Ka category (Bhumidhari land with transferable rights). 9. Thus, it can be noticed that since, both the suits were concerned with different lands, hence no question about the applicability of the principle of res judicata arises, nonetheless, parties were more or less the same and that is why learned Trial Court has also decided this issue, in negation, holding that the suit was not barred by the principle of res judicata. However, the Trial Judge has failed to elaborate his reasoning about mentioning the specific numbers and nature of land of both the suits while adverting the findings on such issue. 10. Furthermore, even when the appeal was preferred by the defendants, the issue of res judicata was specifically not pressed. Therefore, the finding of learned Trial Judge was affirmed on the issue. 11. Now, at the stage of second appeal, the issue of res judicata has again been formulated. 12. In my opinion, the pleadings, in themselves, are sufficient to adjudicate this issue because the earlier Original Suit No.90 of 1986 pertains to the land belonging to Class-IV category whereas the O.S. No. 83 of 1999 related to the land of Class 1-Ka viz. the land with transferable rights. 13. That apart, even if it is considered for a moment that the Pattas were given to the defendants on the plots of land, then also, those Pattas must not and cannot be in the land pertaining to Khasra No. 7/1/1 area 5.312 hectare which is in Class 1-Ka category and this has also been indicated in the Six-Yearly Khatauni of Fasli 1404 to 1409 i.e. 1996-97/2003-04. It covers the period when the Original Suit No.83 of 1999 was launched and in such Khatauni, name of plaintiff Harindrajit Singh has been shown as Khatedaar who was the owner of Khasra No. 7/1/1 area 5.312 hectares situated in Village Gotha, Tehsil Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar. 14. Thus, from the above discussion, it becomes amply clear that the subject matter of both the suits was quite different. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered in negative. 15. As a consequence, this second appeal, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. 16. 14. Thus, from the above discussion, it becomes amply clear that the subject matter of both the suits was quite different. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered in negative. 15. As a consequence, this second appeal, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. 16. Let a copy of this judgment along with the LCR be sent back to the court below.