4. If is, however, seen even from the principles laid down in the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in considering the question of rest judicator, the Court is not concerned with the correctness or otherwise of the judgment rendered. A finding rendered on a fact in issue by a competent Court in earlier proceedings should be regarded as having been finally decided in a subsequent litigation raising the same issue between the same parties. Even if a mixed question of fact and law had been determined between the same parties, that may not also be questioned in the subsequent proceedings. Where the decision is on a question of law, namely, interpretation of a statute, that would also operate as rest judicator in a subsequent proceedings between the same parties where the cause of action is also the same. In this case, the extent of the land as well as its price were the subjectmatter of the earlier proceedings and the Courts which decided those questions had jurisdiction to decide them. The questions decided were essentially factual. Even on the basis that something turned upon the interpretation of the words, "the date of the order", the questions decided earlier by the Courts would be mixed questions of law and fact and as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Mathura Prasad Sarjoo Jaiswal v. Dossibai N. B. Jeejeebhoy , such admixed question of law and fact determined in the earlier proceedings between the same parties may not, for the reason that it had been decided in an earlier proceeding, again be questioned. In the decision in Panchapakesan v. Swaminathan (1976) 1 Mad U 338, Ramaprasada Rao, J., (as he then was) has affirmed the decision of the Courts below and found that 24-3-1965 is the relevant date, as the respondent was first held entitled to claim the benefits of the Act then. Even on the assumption that it was an erroneous decision, the parties should be held to be bound by the same. The circumstance that the decision of
