JUDGMENT : B.N. Karia, J. Present appellants, who are the original plaintiffs before the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 8 of 1996 and appellants before the first appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 93 of 2001, have challenged the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2017 passed by the learned 5th Additional District Judge, Vadodara in Regular Civil Appeal No. 93 of 2001 confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Karjan in Regular Civil Suit No. 8 of 1996. 2. This appeal was placed for admission stage, however, considering the facts of the case that learned trial Court and first appellate Court have arrived at concurrent findings of not considering the facts and prayer made by the plaintiff, this appeal is taken up for final hearing. 3. Learned advocate for the appellant has produced certain documents which were produced before the trial Court for consideration of this appeal. 4. The short facts of the case may be referred as under: In the suit, the plaintiffs have averred that they were in ownership and possession of the different properties i.e., Survey Nos. 612, 750, 853, 959/1 and 780 situated at village Chorandani sim and was cultivating the agricultural lands. Measurement of the different land was also shown in the plaint by the plaintiffs. As per the averments, since 1965, they were in possession of the suit land, as it was allotted to them by Government in a capacity of "Vartania". Thereafter, on termination of services as Vartania, the land was confiscated but however, as per the demand of the plaintiffs, vide order dated 02.03.1965, the land was handed over to the plaintiff and the plaintiffs were cultivating the said land. That, defendant has no right, title and interest in the suit land, however, he was disturbing the possession of the plaintiff. On 18th January, 1996, threat was given by the defendant to the plaintiff that suit land was of the ownership of the defendant and he would get the possession by force. Hence, plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants from distributing the possession of the suit land i.e., survey Nos. 612, 750, 853, 959/1 and 780 situated in the sim of village Chorandani. 5. On receiving the summons, the defendant filed his written statement vide Ex. Hence, plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants from distributing the possession of the suit land i.e., survey Nos. 612, 750, 853, 959/1 and 780 situated in the sim of village Chorandani. 5. On receiving the summons, the defendant filed his written statement vide Ex. 13 contending that he had equally share inasmuch as had preferred a suit for partition, being Regular Civil Suit No. 185/86 and the same was allowed and decree of partition was passed by the Civil Court on 19.10.1991 in his favour. That, execution of the said decree was done at the instance of Collector and Circle Officer. That, one half portion of the land was handed over to him. That, after passing a decree of partition, Civil Misc. Application No. 3/1992 was preferred by the plaintiff under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC to set aside the ex parte decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 185/1986, but was rejected by the civil court. That, being dissatisfied with the order passed in the Civil Misc. Application No. 3/1992, Regular Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1993 was preferred by the plaintiff, which was also came to be rejected by the District Court on 14.06.1994. That, the order passed by the District Court in the said appeal was not challenged. That, the plaintiff has also challenged the order of the Circle Officer of handing over the possession to the defendants by preferring appeal before the Deputy Collector, bearing No. T.A. No. 132/1993, which was also rejected. That, material fact was suppressed by the plaintif in the suit. That, plaintiff has misled the court, and therefore, requested to dismiss the suit. 6. Learned trial Court framed the issues vide Ex. 27. The plaintiff himself was examined vide Ex. 46 and one witness Kanubhai Bavjibhai was examined vide Ex.66 and defendant Somabhai Vasava was examined vide Ex. 69. The learned trial Judge, after recording the evidence of the parties, was pleased to dismiss the suit by an order dated 29th March, 2001. 7. Being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court, present appellant preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 93 of 2001 before the District Court, Vadodara. The learned 5th Additional District Judge, Vadodara, after hearing the parties, was pleased to dismiss the appeal preferred by the appellant vide order dated 27th September, 2017. 7. Being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court, present appellant preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 93 of 2001 before the District Court, Vadodara. The learned 5th Additional District Judge, Vadodara, after hearing the parties, was pleased to dismiss the appeal preferred by the appellant vide order dated 27th September, 2017. Thus, the present appellant has challenged the impugned judgment and decree passed by first appellate Court by preferring this appeal under Section 100, CPC. 8. Heard learned advocate for the appellants. 9. It was submitted by learned advocate for the appellant that the Courts below have committed substantial error of law in not considering principle of law involved in the present proceedings to the effect that once land came to be allotted as well as re-allotted to the predecessor-in-title of the appellant, the defendants could not assume any kind of right, title and interest in the suit land. That, provisions of Section 11 i.e., Res judicata of the Code of Civil Procedure will not apply considering the facts of the case. That, averments made in Regular Civil Suit No. 185/1986, cause of action mentioned for preferring the suit as well as subject mater and averments made in aforesaid suit and cause of action pleaded in the subsequent suit i.e. Regular Civil Suit No. 8 of 1996 were quite different, and therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff cannot be treated as barred by res judicata. However, trial Court as well as first appellate Court have committed an error in not considering the said principle of law. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the appellants to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order by allowing present appeal. 10. The appellants have suggested following substantial questions of law and they are framed as under: A. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the courts below have committed substantial error of law in not considering the proposition of law to the effect that, the subject matter land was specifically allotted to Bablabhai alias Babubhai Laxmanbhai Vasava in his individual name and the same was specifically granted, and therefore, when the order was passed granting specifically the said property in the name of Bablabhai alias Babubhai Laxmanbhai Vasava, the same could not have been treated as joint family property? B. Whether both the courts below have committed substantial error of law in not interpreting property the principle of law to the effect that, when the land has been specifically granted to the specific person, except those persons, no other persons of family members could have assume any right, title and interest in the said property? C. Whether both the courts below have committed substantial error of law in not properly appreciating the aforesaid substantial principle of law involved in the suit and appeal? D. Whether the courts below have committed substantial error of law in holding that the rights of the parties were held to be crystallized on the basis of the judgment, order and decree passed in previously instituted suit-Regular Civil Suit No. 185 of 1986, though cause of action in respect of both the suits are different? E. Whether both the courts below have committed substantial error of law in interpreting the principle of res-judicata? F. Whether both the Courts below have committed substantial error of law in holding that, as the suit came to be filed only for permanent injunction, the determination of right in the previously instituted suit would be binding to the courts, though cause of action of both the suits would be different one? G. Whether both the courts below have committed substantial error of law in not considering the proposition of law to the effect that, when the land has been allotted to specific person and in the name of specific person and for the specific object and when the grant/allotment is done as new tenure land/restricted tenure land? H. Whether both the Courts below have committed substantial error of law in not holding that in view of the nature of land being new tenure land/restricted tenure land, except the person who has been allotted the land, no other person from the family of such grantee could claim any right, title and interest in the subject matter property? H. Whether both the Courts below have committed substantial error of law in not holding that in view of the nature of land being new tenure land/restricted tenure land, except the person who has been allotted the land, no other person from the family of such grantee could claim any right, title and interest in the subject matter property? I. Whether both the courts below have committed substantial error in not considering the principle established through catena of decisions to the effect that, when the land is granted to a specific person and as a restricted tenure land, the same could not have been transferred in any manner and no right, title and interest can be and could be treated in favour of any person without prior permission of the concerned authority including Collector as per the provisions of Section 43 r/w Section 63 of the Bombay Agriculture Land and Tenancy Act? J. Whether both the courts below have committed substantial error of law in not properly appreciating the aforesaid principles of law laid down through catena of decisions in respect of interpretation of provisions of Section 43 r/w Section 63 of the Bombay Agriculture Land and Tenancy Act? 11. Having considered the facts of the case, documents produced on record and submissions made by learned advocate for the appellants, it appears that the plaintiff in the suit i.e., Regular Civil Suit No. 8 of 1996 before the court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Karjan has sought declaration in respect of the suit properties i.e., Survey Nos. 612, 750, 853, 859/1, 780 claiming his possession and prayer was sought by the plaintiff against the defendant restraining him to take the possession of the suit property from the plaintiff. In support of his case, the plaintiffs have produced the village form No. 8-A vide Ex. 47 and village form No. 7/12 vide Exs. 48 to 58 to prove their possession over the suit property. Undisputedly, before filing the present suit by the plaintiff, the defendant has also preferred a previous suit i.e., Regular Civil Suit No. 185/1986 against the present appellants claiming of his share in the suit property, as it was an ancestral property. 47 and village form No. 7/12 vide Exs. 48 to 58 to prove their possession over the suit property. Undisputedly, before filing the present suit by the plaintiff, the defendant has also preferred a previous suit i.e., Regular Civil Suit No. 185/1986 against the present appellants claiming of his share in the suit property, as it was an ancestral property. In the suit filed by the defendants i.e., Regular Civil Suit No. 185/1986, the suit property was described, as was described by the plaintiff in his suit i.e., Regular Civil Suit No. 8 of 1996 i.e., Survey Nos. 612, 750, 853, 959/1 and 780 situated in the sim of village Chorandani. 12. In the revenue record produced by the plaintiff Exs. 47 to 57, name of the plaintiff Vasava Bablabhai Laxmanbhai was entered as an occupant of the suit property. The plaintiff in his deposition Ex. 46 has also supported the facts of his possession over the suit property. The defendant has stated in his evidence on oath Ex. 69 about partition of the suit property and also stated that on the eastern side as well as western side property was came into his share. The defendant has further stated that in Regular Civil Suit No. 185/1986, the judgment and decree was passed in his favour and against the present appellants, who were the defendants in the above said suit. A copy of the decree was produced by the defendant vide Ex. 70, which shows that decree was passed in favour of Somabhai Bharmal i.e. defendant. As per the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 185/1986, 1/2 share and eastern part of the suit property was held entitled to be claimed by the defendant of his share. The plaintiff certainly tried to challenge the impugned judgment and order passed by the Civil Court on 19.10.1991 by preferring Civil Misc. Application No. 3 of 1992 under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC to set aside the impugned judgment and decree, which was admittedly rejected by the Civil Court. The plaintiff, being dissatisfied with the impugned order of rejecting Civil Misc. Application No. 3 of 1992 had preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1993, which also came to be dismissed by the District Court on 14th June, 1994. Thereafter, it appears that the order passed by the District Court on 14th June, 1994 was not challenged by the plaintiff. Application No. 3 of 1992 had preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1993, which also came to be dismissed by the District Court on 14th June, 1994. Thereafter, it appears that the order passed by the District Court on 14th June, 1994 was not challenged by the plaintiff. 13. The plaintiff had also challenged the order of the Circle Officer of handing over the possession of the suit property to the defendant by preferring an appeal before the District Collector, being TA No. 132 of 1993, which also came to be dismissed. The above said facts were not disclosed by the plaintiff in his suit and has tried to suppress the material facts before the Court. 14. The suit property was common in Regular Civil Suit No. 185 of 1986 preferred by the defendant and Regular Civil Suit No. 8 of 1996 preferred by the plaintiff/appellant. The judgment and decree was passed in favour of the defendant Somabhai Bharmalbhai in Regular Civil Suit No. 185 of 1986 of the same property. The defendant was held entitled to claim 1/2 share and particularly of the eastern part of the suit property as per the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 185/1986. Therefore, it cannot be said that the defendant has no any right, title or interest in the suit property. No other documents were produced by the plaintiff passing any adverse order by any appellate Court against the judgment and decree passed in favour of the defendant by the Civil Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 185 of 1986. The rights in respect of the suit property was previously decided by the competent Court between the same parties. The trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court has rightly held that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was barred by the provisions of the res judicata. 15. Of course, there was no evidence produced by the defendant that as per the judgment and order passed by the Civil Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 185 of 1986, possession of the suit property was handed over to the defendant. No documents were produced by the defendants of handing over the possession of the suit property to the defendant. Of course, there was no evidence produced by the defendant that as per the judgment and order passed by the Civil Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 185 of 1986, possession of the suit property was handed over to the defendant. No documents were produced by the defendants of handing over the possession of the suit property to the defendant. The trial Court as well as lower appellate Court has rightly dismissed the prayer made by the plaintiff of granting any permanent injunction against the defendant as the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court below in Regular Civil Suit No. 185/1986 was final as it was not reversed by any appellate Court. 16. The principle of res judicata bars retrial and decision once again of what is concluded but not merely the "raising" of a question. The factual findings relating to the nature and character of the institutions, specifically found on an elaborate review of the governing legal principles as well, and which have reached finality cannot be re-agitated and the same is precluded on the principle of "issue estoppel". The previous decision on a matter in issue alone is res judicata: The court is not concerned with the correctness or otherwise of the earlier judgment. Decision in previous suit when operates as res judicata. 17. Here also, in the previous suit filed by the defendant of the same property was finally decided between the same parties, hence subsequent suit filed by the present plaintiff in connection with the same property cannot be permitted to be decided again by the Civil Court. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Narendra and others v. Ajabrao s/o Narayan Katare (Dead) Through Legal Representatives, (2018) 11 SCC 564, has held that interference in second appeal with finding of fact is not permissible where such finding is found to be wholly perverse to the extent that no judicial person could ever record such finding or where that finding is found to be against the settled principle of law or pleadings or evidence. Such errors constitute a question of law permitting interference in second appeal. Finding of fact on question of adverse possession arrived at by First Appellate Court reversing the finding of trial Court, held that was binding on Second Appellate Court as it was not perverse. 19. Such errors constitute a question of law permitting interference in second appeal. Finding of fact on question of adverse possession arrived at by First Appellate Court reversing the finding of trial Court, held that was binding on Second Appellate Court as it was not perverse. 19. In another case, in the matter between Aftaruddin (Dead) Represented through Legal Representatives v. Ramkrishna Datta alias Babul Datta and others, (2018) 11 SCC 77 , in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, concurrent findings of fact without there being any questions of law much less substantial question of law were set aside by the High Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court viewed that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside the concurrent findings of fact without there being any questions of law much less substantial question of law arising in second appeal. In the cited case, judgment of the High Court was set aside and the judgment of the trial Court was restored. 20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmabiri Rana v. Pramod Kumar Sharma (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and another, (2018) 11 SCC 554 , has confirmed the order passed by the High Court in second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure dismissing the same in absence of any substantial question of law involved therein. 21. Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Beerbal Singh (D) Th. LRs. v. State of U.P. and others, (2017) AIR SC 2712, while observing the judgment reported in AIR 1961 SC 1457 has held that: "We, must now proceed to state our conclusion on the preliminary objection raised by the respondents. We hold that if a writ petition filed by a party under Art. 226 is considered on the merits as and-contested matter, and is dismissed the decision thus pronounced would continue to bind the parties unless it is otherwise modified or reversed by appeal or other appropriate proceedings permissible under the Constitution. It would not be open to a party to ignore the said judgment and move this Court under Art. 32 by an original petition made on the same facts and for obtaining the same or similar orders or writs. It would not be open to a party to ignore the said judgment and move this Court under Art. 32 by an original petition made on the same facts and for obtaining the same or similar orders or writs. If the petition filed in the High Court under Art. 226 is dismissed not on the merits but because of the laches of the party applying for the writ or because it is held that the party had an alternative remedy available to it, then the dismissal of the writ petition would not constitute a bar to a subsequent petition under Art. 32 except in cases where and if the facts thus found by the High Court may themselves be relevant even under Art. 32. If a writ petition is dismissed in limine and an order is pronounced in that behalf, whether or not the dismissal would constitute a bar would depend upon the nature of the order. If the order is on the merits it would be a bar; if the order shows that the dismissal was for the reason that the petitioner was guilty of laches or that he had an alternative remedy it would not be a bar, except in cases which we have already indicated. If the petition is dismissed in limine without passing a speaking order then such dismissal cannot be treated as creating a bar of res judicata. It is true that, prima facie, dismissal in limine even without passing a speaking order in that behalf may strongly suggest that the Court took the view that there was no substance in the petition at all; but in the absence of a speaking order it would not be easy to decide 593 what factors weighed in the mind of the Court and that makes it difficult and unsafe to hold that such a summary dismissal is a dismissal on merits and as such constitutes a bar of res judicata against a similar. The petition filed under Art. 32. If the petition is dismissed as withdrawn it cannot be a bar to a subsequent Gaj petition under Art. 32, because in such a case there has been no decision on the merits by the Court. The petition filed under Art. 32. If the petition is dismissed as withdrawn it cannot be a bar to a subsequent Gaj petition under Art. 32, because in such a case there has been no decision on the merits by the Court. We wish to make it clear that the conclusions thus reached by us are confined only to the point of res judicata which has been argued as a preliminary issue in these writ petitions and no other. It is in the light of this decision that we will now proceed to examine the position in the six petitions before us." 22. Accordingly, the present appeal is hereby ordered to dismissed, as there is no substantial question of law found by this Court to be adjudicated. Factual findings arrived at by the trial court as well as appellate Court are binding to the Court and they can not be said to be illegal or perverse. ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION: 23. In view of the order of dismissal passed in the main matter, present application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly.