JUDGMENT : Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. The respondent No.1, herein, was a plaintiff in a regular Suit No.36 of 2013, Kishan Lal Satija Vs. Uttarakhand State and another, in relation to a property, which was more appropriately described as to be a land, which was lying in Khata Khatauni No. 15, present Khata No. 42, measuring 119 x 63 square feet of land, i.e. equivalent to 0.065 hectares of land situated in Village Sitabpur, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal. 2. The said Suit proceeded, which after the exchange of pleadings was decided by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) by the judgment and decree of 25th July, 2015, and as a consequence to the judgment and decree rendered in Suit No. 36 of 2013, Kishan Lal Satija Vs. Uttarakhand State and another, the learned Trial Court by its judgment as aforesaid, had dismissed the Suit of the respondent No.1, herein, but that dismissal of the Suit would be qua the Uttarakhand State and the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, who were the opposites parties therein, in the Suit. 3. The judgment of 25th July 2015, was put to challenge in a regular Civil Appeal, being Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2015, Kishan Lal Satija Vs. Uttarakhand State and others, in which, the present appellant was for the first time introduced as opposite party No. 3. 4. The Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2015, Kishan Lal Satija Vs. Uttarakhand State and others, has been considered on merits and decided by the learned Appellate Court by the impugned judgment of 16th May, 2016, as rendered in Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2015, Kishan Lal Satija Vs. Uttarakhand State and others. 5. Consequent to it, the resultant effect was, that the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 25th July, 2015, was set aside. 6. Before this Court proceeds to address the issue on merits, it becomes inevitable for the Court to deal with certain very vital aspects, resulting into an adjudication of a right by way of regular proceedings in relation to the land, in dispute, as decided by the Court of Assistant Collector, 1st Class, in a regular proceeding which were held under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. In fact, in the regular proceeding, which was decided by the Court of Assistant Collector, it was Suit No. 26 of 1984 – 85, Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari Vs. In fact, in the regular proceeding, which was decided by the Court of Assistant Collector, it was Suit No. 26 of 1984 – 85, Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari Vs. Chandan Singh, and it would be appropriate to observe, at this stage itself, that Chandan Singh; was the predecessors in interest of the present appellant/defendant. 7. Consequently, the Court of Assistant Collector, which was a regular Court for deciding the title over the property in dispute by the judgment of 10th March, 1986, had decreed the Suit and had held the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, as to be the owner in possession of the property, in dispute, and the reason, which was observed therein was, that the predecessors of the appellant, late Mr. Chandan Singh, had also instituted a Suit way back in 1994 before the Court of Munsiff, which was dismissed. The decree of 1994 as it was rendered against the predecessors of the appellant, late Mr. Chandan Singh had attained finality, qua the property, in dispute, which was decided in a regular proceedings under Section 229-B, as decided on 10th March, 1986. 8. The respondent No.1, herein, claiming himself to be aggrieved by the judgment and decree rendered in a proceeding, under Section 229-B, had preferred a ZA Appeal No. 12 of 1985-86, which too was dismissed by the Court of Additional Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, by the judgment of 7th November, 1986. 9. Once again, at this stage itself, this Court feels it to be appropriate to observe, that as against the principal judgment which was rendered in a proceeding under Section 229-B, no Appeal was preferred by the predecessors of the present appellant, apart from the fact, that the predecessor of the appellant was already a judgment debtor in a prior instituted Suit of 1984. 10. The Z.A. Appeal as decided by the Court of Additional Commissioner on 7th November, 1986, was carried to Board of Revenue by way of challenge given in the Second Appeal No. 4 of 1996, Kishan Lal Satija Vs. Zila Basic Shikha Adhikari and others, which was allowed, and as a consequence thereto, the Appeal of respondent No.1, was allowed and the same was decided against the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari and another, who are the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, herein, in the instant Second Appeal. 11. Zila Basic Shikha Adhikari and others, which was allowed, and as a consequence thereto, the Appeal of respondent No.1, was allowed and the same was decided against the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari and another, who are the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, herein, in the instant Second Appeal. 11. This Court is of the view, that any subsequent proceedings drawn by the appellant in the capacity of his claim consequent to devolvement of a right from his predecessors, late Mr. Chandan, Singh, that will be equally binding upon him, but particularly, when the Assistant Collector has already decided his right in the proceedings, in which, his predecessor was the defendant, and which has attained the finality upto the Board of Revenue, by the rendering a judgment on 26th April, 1996, holding the respondent No.1, as to be the owner of the disputed property, as against the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari. 12. The said judgment would be equally binding on the appellant, because there was no challenge given by late Mr. Chandan Singh, to the aforesaid judgment by filing an Appeal, and since being a proceeding covered by the Schedule 9 of the Constitution of India, will have a binding precedent, since being a proceeding, which was held under the under the Special Legislation, protected by Entry-14 of Schedule-9 of the Constitution of India. 13. It was later on, that the present appellant is said to have preferred this present Second Appeal, as against the judgment and decree rendered on 25th July, 2015, in a later instituted Suit No. 36 of 2013, being Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2015, Kishan Lal Satija Vs. Uttarakhand State and others. The Civil Appeal has been allowed and the judgment and decree rendered in Civil Suit No. 36 of 2013 on 25th July 2015, has been set aside. 14. It would to be relevant to observe herein, that if the principal proceedings, which were agitated by way of Suit No. 36 of 2013, Kishan Lal Satija Vs. Uttarakhand State and another, is taken into consideration, it was a simplicitor suit instituted for the grant of decree of permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction, refraining the defendants therein from raising any further construction over the property in dispute. 15. Uttarakhand State and another, is taken into consideration, it was a simplicitor suit instituted for the grant of decree of permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction, refraining the defendants therein from raising any further construction over the property in dispute. 15. The respondent No. 1, herein, has chosen to sue the State of Uttarakhand and Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, on the principal ground, that the original Suit No. 54 of 2002, Kishan Lal Satija Vs. Mahendra Singh and others, was decreed in favour of the plaintiff therein, and coupled with the fact, that in the proceedings, which was decided by way of 229-B, the predecessors of the present plaintiff/respondent, was already held to be a judgment debtor, and ultimately, by the judgment rendered by the Second Appellate Court. 16. In fact, in the pre-lunch session, when the matter was argued, this aspect was never placed before this Court, during the course of the argument, that the judgment rendered by the Assistant Collector in the proceedings, which were held under Section 229-B, was as against a dead person, because the predecessor of the appellant was predeceased, when the Assistant Collector has decided the matter, under Section 229-B of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. 17. In fact, what he intends to argue is, that the judgment rendered by the Assistant Collector, would be a judgment in nullity, qua the defendant/appellant, who claims to succeed his rights, from late Mr. Chandan Singh. 18. This argument of the learned counsel for the appellant may not be sustainable at this stage for the purposes of present proceedings, for the reason being, that whatsoever the rights were devolving upon the present appellant from his predecessors, as soon as it was brought to his knowledge that there was Suit decided against the deceased late Mr. Chandan Singh, who was the late father of the present appellant, it was rather incumbent upon him to have either moved an appropriate application before the Court of Assistant Collector for setting aside the decree, which was a nullity or could have resorted to other appropriate judicial proceedings for setting aside the ex parte decree and proceedings which were held under Section 229-B. 19. This was not even resorted to at any stage, even when the aforesaid fact of rendering of the judgment by the Court of Assistant Collector, was brought to his knowledge, by way of counter affidavit, which was filed by the respondents, when the judgment of the Assistant Collector, was made as part and parcel of the document, which was placed on record in the present Second Appeal. 20. Hence, in that eventuality, the appellant cannot take an advantage for his own inaction, and this may not be having much bearing because even for the time being, if it is presumed that the predecessors of the appellant late Mr. Chandan Singh was predeceased at the time when the suit itself was decided under Section 229-B, this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact, that if the judgment and decree rendered by the Court of Assistant Collector, is taken into consideration, it was based upon a fact that the predecessor of the appellant was already a judgment debtor in a prior instituted Civil Suit decided against him as back as in 1984. The factum of being a judgment debtor in a Suit of 1984 is still a fact, not controverted by the present appellant, in any manner. 21. In that eventuality, in fact, that when the decree of the Assistant Collector has attained finality, which would be a regular proceedings under a Special Statute, a simplicitor suit for injunction as preferred by the respondent No. 1, herein, will not entail deciding of a question of title, qua the parties to the proceedings because title in a Suit for injunction is only incidental in nature, it will never override the unchallenged regular decree because otherwise, the plaintiff respondent No. 1, herein, was already declared, as to be an owner of the property in view of the decision taken by the Second Appellate Court, i.e. Board of Revenue, in a proceedings culminating after the conclusion of the proceedings which were held under Section 229-B. 22. The very date of the institution of the Suit, i.e. in October, 2013, would yet again could be said to be nothing but a judicial recourse, which has been adopted by the appellant by seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction in order to override the effect of the decree which was rendered against his late father Mr. The very date of the institution of the Suit, i.e. in October, 2013, would yet again could be said to be nothing but a judicial recourse, which has been adopted by the appellant by seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction in order to override the effect of the decree which was rendered against his late father Mr. Chandran Singh and the Suit for declaration decided upto the Second Appellate Court against him, against which, the appellant has not resorted to any recourse available to him under law. 23. In that eventuality, once the issue of title itself has been decided against the predecessors of the appellant, the appellant cannot have a better title than that of his predecessors late Mr. Chandan Singh as settled by the Board of Revenue, and hence, he could not have been granted a decree of a permanent prohibitory injunction, as it was prayed for in Suit No. 36 of 2013, Kishan Lal Satija Vs. Uttarakhand State and another, which was later on granted in favour of the respondent No.4 by putting it under challenged by way of Appeal, whereby the 1st Appellate Court had set aside the decree of the Trial Court on behalf of respondent No. 1 herein. 24. Hence, this Court is of the view:- i. That since the regular proceedings under Section 229-B held under Z.A. Act, since has attained finality and no question of any nature whatsoever has been raised ever against it by the successors of the judgment debtor of the proceedings under section 229- B, may it be for whatsoever reason, that the decree rendered by the Board of Revenue is still holds to be good in the eyes of law, unless challenged, recalled or set aside later. ii. Secondly, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the decree of the Assistant Collector was against a dead person, it will have no bearing, because the basis of the judgment of the Assistant Collector since happens to be a decree of prior Suit of 1984 by the predecessors of the present appellant, that will be equally binding the present appellant too. iii. iii. When a decree of a permanent injunction, since it does not take a shape of declaration of a right or title of a party because its consideration is only incidental in nature, for the purposes of determining the issuance of injunction, the appellant may not have any right at such as against the judgment and decree, which has been put to challenge in the present Second Appeal, as rendered in Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2015, Kishan Lal Satija Vs. Uttarakhand State and others. iv. Thus the substantial question of law as attempted to be framed by the learned counsel for the appellant qua the title of the property in question on the basis of the possession, seeking an injunction in their favour would be barred, for the reason being that the appellant would be equally bound by decree of 1984, rendered against his late father and he would also be bound by the effect of the judgment of the Second Appellate Court rendered by the Board of Revenue. v. The learned counsel for the appellant, when he has attempted to attract a certain observations which were made in the proceeding held under Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act, in a revision, which was decided, this Court is of the view that the findings recorded in a proceeding under Section 219, which was arising out of the proceedings under Sections 34 and 35 of the Land Revenue Act, since being summary in nature, they will not have any preceding binding effect over and above, the decree rendered by the competent regular Civil or the Revenue Courts. Hence, they cannot be extracted to be read over and above the decree rendered by the courts below. 25. For the aforesaid reasons, the substantial question of law as framed in the Second Appeal does not fall for consideration in the present Second Appeal, in question. The Second Appeal is concluded by concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below, hence, the Second Appeal lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.