The doctrine of res judicata prevents parties from relitigating the same question, even if the previous determination may be wrong. The correctness of a judicial decision has no bearing on whether it operates as res judicata.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. This second appeal has arisen out of the judgment and decree, dated 30-11-1999 and 20-12-1999 respectively, passed by the learned Civil Judge {Senior Division), Dhubri, in Title Appeal No. 13 of 1998, reversing the judgment, dated 29-61998. and decree, dated 6-7-1998, passed, in Title Suit No. 303 of 1993, by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division) No. 1, Dhubri, decreeing the plaintiff-appellant's suit.

2. The case of the plaintiff-appellant may. in brief, be stated thus : Late Jagdish Chandra Biswas had a homestead land, described In Schedule-A to the plaint. Out of the land of Schedule-A, as much as 15 much as 15 land was gifted by the heirs of Jagadish Chandra Biswas to a Kali Mandir Committee. From the heirs of deceased Jagdish Chandra. Biswas, the plaintiff - appellant purchased, vide a Registered sale deed, dated 3-11-1983, 4 kathas 1 lechas of land and took delivery of possession thereof, the land having been so purchased and taken possession of by the plaintiff-appellant being described in Schedule-B to the plaint. On 30-11-1984/85. the defendants - respondents trespassed into the land of Schedule-B and took forcible possession of s a portion thereof and, constructed, thereon houses, the portion of the land from where the plaintiff-appellant was so dispossessed being described in Schedule-C to the plaint, which formed part of the land of Schedule-B, though the defendants-respondents have no right, over the said land except collecting rent from the plaintiff-appellant. The plaintiff-appellant, then, instituted Title Suit NO. 7.5/1985 in the Court of Munsiff No. 1, Dhubri. praying for declaration of her right, title and interest: over the land of Schedule-B and a decree of Khas possession in respect of the land of Schedule-C by evicting the defendants-respondents therefrom. The defendants respondents contested the suit by filing their written statement, wherein they denied plaintiff s right, title and interest over the land of Schedule-B and also plaintiffs prayer for recovery of khas possession of the land of Schedule-C, By judgment, dated 61-1987, the suit was decreed on contest with cost-in favour of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants-respondents preferred Title Appeal No. 21/1987, but the game was dismissed. The plaintiff, then, pull the decree into execution and recovered, through Title Execution Case No, 11/1987, khas possession, on 10-6-1987, of the land of Schedule-C by getting the defendants evicted therefrom, the possession of the suit land having been so delivered to the plaintiff by the Nazir of the Court; but on 6-41989, the defendants, again, dispossessed the plaintiff from the said land of Schedule C and constructed thatched houses thereon. The plaintiff, then, instituted Title Suit No. 303/1993 (which has led to the present appeal) seeking decree for khas possession over the land of Schedule-C by demolishing the houses constructed thereon by the defendants and by evicting the defendants therefrom and also for compensation,

3. The defendants-respondents contested Title Suit No. 303/1993 aforementioned by filing their written statement, their case being, in brief, that the defendants have been in possession of the suit land since before the death of late Jagadish Chandra Biswas, the defendants having their dwelling houses standing thereon, the defendants, contrary to what the plaintiff claimed, did not take forcible possession of the land of Schedule-C on 30-4-1984. which allegedly led to the filing of Title Suit No. 75/1985, nor did the defendants, contrary to what the plaintiff alleges, enter into the suit land on 6-4-1989. The suit land belongs to the defendants, who have rights, title and interest and possession over the same; whereas the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit land. The defendants, therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. The learned trial Court framed the following issues in Title Suit No. 313/1993 :-

1. Whether the suit