S.P. Khare, J.

1. This is a second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. The following substantial questions of law were formulated by order dated 14.3.1991 at the time of admission of this appeal -

(1) "Whether the Court below failed to consider the material evidence on record" ?

(2) "Whether the findings of the Court below are perverse" ?

2. The facts relevant for the decision of the questions referred above are that Ramnath was Bhumiswami of Khasra Nos. 165, 166, 188, 144, 145, 149, 150, 163, 300, 304, 313, 314, 336, 338, 341, 353, 373, 378, 507, 522 and 536 (total 21) area 15.407 hectares of village Bilha, Tahsil Gunor, district Panna. Plaintiff Halkai was his brother. He filed the civil suit for possession of these lands. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The judgment and decree of the trial Court have been set aside in first appeal. The claim of the plaintiff was that he is the nearest heir of Ramnath. On the other hand, defendant No. 1 Rajrani claimed that she is the widow of Ramnath. Her case was that Ramnath had married her after the death of his first wife. It was also pleaded that defendant No. 2 Smt. Chandrakumari alias Chanda Bai is daughter of Rajrani through Ramnath. The first appellate Court has held after appreciation of the documentary and oral evidence on record that Rajrani was wife of Ramnath and defendant No. 2 Smt. Chandrakumari alias Chanda Bai is daughter of Ramnath through Rajrani. This finding of fact is based on proper appreciation of evidence. There is no legal infirmity in the finding. Rajrani lived for several years with Ramnath as his wife and Chanda Bai was born to her through Ramnath. It was suggested by plaintiff Halkai that Rajrani is actually wife of Gokul and defendant No. 2 Chandrakumari alias Chanda Bai is daughter of Gokul. That evidence has not been believed. Gokul is living in the village. He has not been examined as a witness by the plaintiff to rebut the evidence of Rajrani (DW-1).

3. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that in the order dated 27.2.1973 (Ex.P-3) in M.J.C. No. 2 of 1973 it has been held by the Additional District Judge, Panna while granting succession certificate in respect of an amount of Rs. 10,600/- that Halkai is the heir of Ramnath and Rajrani is not his wife. It is further contended that this is a judgment in rem and binding on all and Rajrani was a party to those proceedings and therefore the finding in that case constitutes res-judicata in the present case. It is also pointed out that even if the Court in succession case was a Court of limited jurisdiction its finding on the issue decided by it would be res-judicata as per Explanation VIII to Section 11 C.P.C. After considering these contentions this Court is of the opinion that the finding in that case does not constitute res-judicata in the present case. There was no specific plea of res-judicata in the plaint. No such plea was raised before the trial Court or the first appellate Court. There was no issue on this point. The subject matter of dispute in the succession case under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 was the amount of Rs. 10,600/-. The lands in dispute in the present case were not the subject matter of dispute in that case.

4. Section 387 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 provides that no decision under this Part upon any question of right between any parties shall be held to bar the trial of the same question in suit or in any other proceeding between the same parties, and nothing in this Part shall be construed to affect the liability of any person who may receive the whole or any part of any debt or security, or any interest or dividend on any security, to account therefor to the person lawfully entitled thereto. It is well settled that the proceedings for grant of succession certificate are summary proceedings. In view of Section 387 any decision in such proceeding in respect of the rights do not preclude the parties to litigate the same in a regular suit. A decisio