Having lost in both the Courts below, defendants have filed this second appeal. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land and the house standing thereon and also for khas possession by evicting the defendants. Plaintiff has also prayed for compensation for wrongful use and occupation of the suit house and the land. The area of the suit land is 1 K. 9 L. and covered by Dag No.458 (Kha), Periodic Patta No. 70 of Doomdooma Mouza. The suit property is situated within Doomdooma town. According to plaintiff, the suit land originally belonged to his grand father late Munsi Khan Seikh and devolved upon him by inheritance. He got his name mutated in the revenue record in the year 1955 with one house on the suit land which has duly been assessed and registered in the year 1955-56 as holding No.86 of C Ward of Doomdooma town, and he has been paying Municipal Tax. There is also a vacant land about 15ft. width to the South of the suit land. According to plaintiff he rented out the suit premises to tenants and ultimately to defendant No.l. It is stated that defendant No.l was a tenant in a house of one Hazi Safiullah and the house is situated in Dag No.484 (Part) covered by Periodic Patta No.96 and is adjacent to the suit premises on the Northern side. Defend­ant No.l was carrying on business in the said house of Hazi Safiullah. To the further North of the said house one Kasem Ali was residing by building his house on the land belonging to Hazi Safiullah and the land is covered by Dag No.484. Sometime in March 1966, the defendant No. 1 was inducted as a tenant in respect of the suit house at a monthly rent of Rs.150/- and the tenancy was according to English calendar month. Defendant No. 1 did not pay rent in spite of repeated demands and thereafter he sublet a part of the suit premises. Plaintiff asked the defendant No 1 to vacate the suit premises. But he found that his son defendant No.2 initiated a proceeding under section 145 CrPC wherein it was stated that defendant No 2 purchased the suit bouse from Hazi Kasem AH on 23.4.53 and he acknowledged Md. Plaintiff asked the defendant No 1 to vacate the suit premises. But he found that his son defendant No.2 initiated a proceeding under section 145 CrPC wherein it was stated that defendant No 2 purchased the suit bouse from Hazi Kasem AH on 23.4.53 and he acknowledged Md. Jalil, son of late Hazi Safiullah to be the owner and landlord of the land and the defendant denied the tenancy between the defendant and the plaintiff. Thereafter after issuing notice to quit and vacate the premises, the present suit has been filed. 3. Defendant Nos.l and 2 filed a joint written statement and averred that the suit land did not devolved on the plaintiff alone, as Munsi Khan had several sons, daughters and grandsons. According to defendants, in the year 1942 defendant No. 1 opened a cycle shop in a house rented out by Haji Safiullah. The holding number of the said house being No. 91 in C Ward of Doomdooma town and he resided there till 1947. Defendant No. 1 took another house from Haji Kasem AH on rent till 1953. Defendant No. 1 purchased the house in the name of his eldest son defendant No. 2 from Haji Kasem Ali by registered sale deed in the year 1953 for valuable consideration and after purchase both the defendants residing in the house and possessing the same. The same house is also situated in Ward No. C and holding No. 42 C in the year 1955 and in the year 1956-57 to 89 C and in the year 58-59 to 91 C and thereafter to 92 C. Defendants have further averred that the suit is not maintainable; it is bad for non-joinder of parties and barred by limitation. 4. The suit was also contested by defendant No. 3 i. e. Md. Jalil. son of Haji Safiullah. It is alleged that Haji Kasem Ali was in occupation of the parts of land under Dag No.484 (Ka) and (Kha) who had houses therein since 1940. In the year 1944 Haji Safiullah after purchase got his name mutated in respect of the above dags and thereafter Haji Kasem Ali attorned to him as tenant. It is further stated that near the house of Haji Kasim Ali late Haji Safiullah had some other houses which were rented out. In the year 1944 Haji Safiullah after purchase got his name mutated in respect of the above dags and thereafter Haji Kasem Ali attorned to him as tenant. It is further stated that near the house of Haji Kasim Ali late Haji Safiullah had some other houses which were rented out. One bouse was rented to defendant No. 1 as a tenant of Haji Safiullah in the year 1953. The defendant No. 1 purchased some rented houses in the name of his son defendant No. 2. After the death of Haji Safiullah in the year 1957, the defendant No, 1 and 2 attorned to defendant No. 2 as his tenant in respect of the land under the dags in question. According to this defendant he came to know later on that the plaintiff got his name mutated and has further stated that the defendant was at a loss as to how the mutation could be granted, 5. The learned trial Court framed as many as 9 issues. The learned trial Court while taking issue No. 1 i; e, whether the suit was maintainable, Considered the evidence on record and also noted the fact that according to plaintiff, PW 9, the property being ancestral was amicably partitioned by mutual family arrangement and the plaintiff got the suit land and some other land in Doomdooma, his mother was given some land at Saikhowa According to plaintiff, this family arrangement took place 14/15 year back. This witness has further stated that his grand father late Munsi Khan had one son and 4 daughters and he and his mother got the land by this family arrangement in Assam and his uncle Taber and other daughters of late Munsi Khan was given the property situated at Bihar. This family arrangement was corroborated by PW 7 who is his son and the uncle of the plaintiff. PW 2 the Lat Mandal as the revenue staff testified regarding the mutation of the land in the name of the plaintiff in the year 1960-61 and Ext.2 and 3 is the copy of the Chitha and Zamabandi. PW 8 was the Chairman of Doomdooma Municipal Board from 1960-61 who knew the suit land has stated that the house was in possession of the plaintiff. On these evidence, the learned trial Court held that suit is maintainable. PW 8 was the Chairman of Doomdooma Municipal Board from 1960-61 who knew the suit land has stated that the house was in possession of the plaintiff. On these evidence, the learned trial Court held that suit is maintainable. Issue No.2 was also decided in favour of the plaintiff Regarding issue No. 3, the learned trial Court accepted the family arrangement and noted the mutation of the name of the plaintiff in the revenue record and the fact of his construction of the house in the year 1955 and letting it out to tenants. The learned trial Court also noted that the defendants 1 and 2 is not claiming the suit land, but only the house and that defendant No. 3 has claimed the suit land and quoted relevant portion of para 12 of written statement of defendant No. 3 and also noted that defendant No. 3 did not produce any Zamabandi to show the name of his ancestor in the revenue record. Accor­dingly, the learned trial Court accepted unrebutted evidence of PWs 2, 7, 8 and 9 and accepted the family settlement and also the mutation of the name of the plaintiff in the revenue record and accordingly decided the suit in favour of the plaintiff. In otharwords the learned trial Court accepted the title of the plaintiff alone in view of the family arrangement and rejected the plea that other heirs of Munsi Khan have to be impleaded as defendants although this has not been stated in clear terms in the judgment. 6. Issues Nos. 4 and 5 were taken together by the learned trial Court and these issues are regarding limitation and right, title and interest of the plaintiff. After considering the evidence on record including documentary evidence viz revenue record and the Municipal record, the learned Court accepted the statements of the plaintiff regarding his title over the suit property. In these issues also the learned trial Court noted that defendant No. 1 and 2 did not claim the land, but only the houses by right of purchase Ext. Ga. This Ext. Ga was not accepted, as according to learned trial Court no dag number or patta number of the land on which the house is situated was given The learned Court also noted that defendant No. 3 did not produce any revenue paying receipt whereas plaintiff filed such receipts viz Ext. 12 (1) to Ext. Ga. This Ext. Ga was not accepted, as according to learned trial Court no dag number or patta number of the land on which the house is situated was given The learned Court also noted that defendant No. 3 did not produce any revenue paying receipt whereas plaintiff filed such receipts viz Ext. 12 (1) to Ext. 12 (7). The learned trial Court also noted the conflicting statements made in written statement of defendant No. 1, 2 and 3. After elaborate discussion the learned trial Court held that suit is not barred by limitation and that plaintiff has got right, title and interest over the suit land and accordingly decreed the suit. 7. The learned lower appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court. It is true that learned lower appellate Court has not discussed in details {he evidence on record, but as this is 9 judgment in affirmation and as the learned lower appellate Court concurred with all the findings pf the learned trial Court, the judgment cannot be said to be not in accordance with CPC as urged by learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Baruah has first urged that the Courts below did not consider and decide the issue regarding non-joinder of parties viz issue No, 3. 8. From the written statement filed by the defendants it appears that defendants 1 and 2 have claimed the suit house by right of purchase and has further stated that in respect of the suit land defendant No. 3 is the owner being the son of late Haji Safiullah. Defendant No. 3 has stated that even assuming that the predscessor-in-interest was the owner of the suit land, the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties as all the heirs of the said predecessor-in-interest viz Munsi Khan have not been impleaded as parties. This is also the stand taken in para 1 of the written statement of defendant No. 1 and 2. As stated above, the case of the plaintiff is that he is the absolute owner of the suit land as the land and the house devolved on him after the death of grand father late Munsi Khan by inheritance. From the evidence on record it appears that according to plaintiff, the suit property devolved on him as a result of family arrangement made by the legal representatives of late Munsi Khan. From the evidence on record it appears that according to plaintiff, the suit property devolved on him as a result of family arrangement made by the legal representatives of late Munsi Khan. So if it can be proved that by the said family arrangement, plaintiff became the owner of the suit land by inheritance, the other legal heirs need not be made parties to the suit. 9. Learned trial Court while taking up issue No. 1 i.e. regarding maintai­nability accepted the statement of the plaintiff, PW 1 that ancestral land were amicably partitioned by family arrangement and plaintiff got the suit land and other land at Doomdooma and his mother inherited the property, at Saikhowa. This family arrangement was made 15/16 years back. He has further stated that other heirs of late Munsi Khan got the property situated at Bihar. P W 7 stated that the plaintiff is his uncle's son and he has also corroborated the family arrangement. This story of the plaintiff was accepted by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned lower appellate Court and sitting in second appeal I cannot interfere with this finding as this is not perverse. 10. Though while dealing with the question of issue of non joinder of parties, the learned trial Court has not elaborated the facts, but having accepted the family arrangement and the fact that the plaintiff got his name mutated in the revenue record in 1961 and further constructed the house in 1955 and let it out to other tenants, the Court did not consider it necessary to impleade the other heirs of late Munsi Khan. The Court also recorded that defendants 1 and 2 were claiming the suit land and also the fact that defendant No. 3 did not produce any old Zamabandi or revenue record of his ancestors, Qn these facts the issue of non-joinder was decided in favour of the plaintiff. 11. The Court also recorded that defendants 1 and 2 were claiming the suit land and also the fact that defendant No. 3 did not produce any old Zamabandi or revenue record of his ancestors, Qn these facts the issue of non-joinder was decided in favour of the plaintiff. 11. It may be stated that in the written statement of the defendant No. 3, it has been stated that his father Haji Sa<iullah got his namejnutated fa Dag No, 413 ( Ka and Kha) 414 ( Ka and; Kha ) 366 to 371 by right of purchase and possession, but regarding the dag of the present suit viz Dag No. 485 ( Ka and Kha ) it has been stated that the said dag is situated in the middle of the compact block consisting of the above dags with road on two sides with no ingress or egress. It has not been stated in the written statement of defendant No. 3 that the suit Dag No. 485 (Ka and Kha) was purchased by the father of the defendant No. 3 Md. Haji Safiullah and the only basis for claiming this suit dag was the fact that this dag along with other dags were settled with Haji Kasem Ali, a tenant of lite Haji Safiullah and late Haji Kasim Ali was in occupation of this dag since 1940. So it is not clear to this Court what is the basis of claiming of ownership of the suit dag by defendant No. 3. It may be mentioned that both the Courts below has rejected the claim of the defendants that the suit is barred by adverse possession. 12. Situated thus I am of the option that there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Courts below did not decide this issue regarding non-joinder of parties viz issue No. 3. It may be reiterated that having found that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land by inheritance through family arrangement the learned Court below rightly rejected the plea of non-joinder of parties. Regarding finding of fact the title of the plaintiff, the Court below not only took into consideration, the family arrangement, but also the Chitha and Zamabandi Exts. 2 and 3 in which the name of the plaintiff was mutated in place of Munsi Khan in the year 1961. Regarding finding of fact the title of the plaintiff, the Court below not only took into consideration, the family arrangement, but also the Chitha and Zamabandi Exts. 2 and 3 in which the name of the plaintiff was mutated in place of Munsi Khan in the year 1961. The learned Courts below also took into consideration the valuation list of Doomdooma Town Committee C Ward Ext. 4 and 9 in which holding No.86 is recorded in the name of the plaintiff and holding No.87 in the name of Kasem Ali vide Ext. 4 and 9. It may be mentioned that in Ext.4 against holding No.86 the dag number of the land has been given as 485 (Ka and Kha) against the name of the plaintiff. 13. I have recorded the above part of the evidence as Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that plaintiff could not prove his title and entries in the revenue record does not confer any title. In the case in hand the claim of the plaintiff is not only based on the entries on the revenue record but also the family arrangement, records of the Doomdooma Town Committee and oral evidence. That apart as the whole claim is based on inheritance, the above documents were sufficient to prove the title of the plaintiff and accordingly, learned Courts below rightly held that plaintiff has got right, title and interest over the suit land. In addition, I may again state that defendant No.3 in the written statement has not claimed the suit dag by right of purchase or otherwise except by right of adverse possession which was also rejected by the Courts below. 14. Mr.Baruah has streneously attacked the family arrangement as pleaded and accepted by the Courts below. According to Mr. Baruah, the family arrangements as pleaded and accepted by the Courts below is not valid and legal, inasmuch as, for such family arrangement there should be a dispute between the members of the family and that apart it required registration. In this connection Mr. Baruah has placed reliance in various decisions. 15. In Ramakrishna Raju vs. Narayan Raju, AIR 1949 PC 165, the family settlement was considered and accepted as there was a genuine dispute and compromise was affected by such family settlement and for the benefit of the family as a whole. 16. In this connection Mr. Baruah has placed reliance in various decisions. 15. In Ramakrishna Raju vs. Narayan Raju, AIR 1949 PC 165, the family settlement was considered and accepted as there was a genuine dispute and compromise was affected by such family settlement and for the benefit of the family as a whole. 16. In Hanim Das vs. Narayan Das, AIR 1940 Bombay 181 a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that it is one of the necessary requir­ements for a family arrangement that it must be conclude with the object of settling of some bonafide dispute arising out of conflicting claim to property, existing or likely to arise (emphasis supplied). Attention of this Court has also been drawn to a decision of Patna High Court in Mt.Haliman vs. Md. Manir, AIR 1971 Patna 385 where an agreement was executed purporting to forfeit claim and it was held that such an agreement requires registration. 17. According to Mr. N.M.Lahiri, learned counsel for the respondents, this question regarding family partition has been settled by the Apex Court Learned counsel has drawn my attention to the observation at page 807 of S.M.Lahiri's Transfer of Property Act (10th Edition) where the aspect of family settlement has been dealt with at length. 18. In Teg Bahadur vs. Devi Singh, AIR 1966 SC 292 the Apex Court held that the family arrangement as such can be arrived at orally. It was further held that its terms may be recorded in writing as a memorandum of what had been agreed upon between the parties and the memorandum need not be prepared for a purpose of being used as a document on which future title of the parties be founded. According to Apex Court it is usually prepared as a record of what had been agreed upon so that there been not hazy notions about it in future and it is only when parties reduced the family arrangement in writing with the purpose of using that writing as proof of what they had arranged and where the arrangement is brought about by the claimant as such, that document would require registration as it is then it would be a document of title declaring for future what right in what proper­ties the parties possesses. 19. 19. In S.S. Pillai vs. K.S.Pillai, AIR 1972 SC 2069 ,the Apex Court relying on earlier decision in Sahu Nadho Das vs. Pandit Mukund Ram, AIR 1955 SC 481 was of the view that the Courts lean strongly in favour of family arrangement that bring about harmony in a family and do justice to its various members and avoid in anticipation futures dispute which might ruine them all and family arrangement can as a matter of law be inferred from a long course of dealings between the par ties. Relying on another decision of the Apex Court in Maturi Pullaiah vs. Maturi Narasinhan, AIR 1966 SC 1836 , Court held that though conflict of legal claims in praesenti or in future is generally a condition for the validity of family arrangement, it is not necessarily so and even bonafide disputes, present 01 possible, which may not involve legal claims would be sufficient. According to their Lordships members of joint Hindu family may, to maintain peace or to bring about harmony in the family, enter into in such a family arrangement and entered into bonafide and terms are fair in the circumstances of a particular case, the Courts would more readily give assent to such an agreement then to avoid it. 20. Thus from the above decision of the Apex Court it follows that a family arrangement can be oral one also. It is not always necessary that such family arrangement is to be made to prevent present or future dispute and even without such dispute family arrangement can be made for maintaining peace and harmony in the family, provided such arrangement is entered into bonafide and the terms are fair. Conflict or dispute if there be any for such family arrangement may be for present as well as future. 21. Whether such family arrangement would require registration or not would depend on such agreement. I say so as the Apex Court has laid down that family arrangement may even can be made orally. It has to be bear in mind that normally a family arrangement is not a transfer of property, for no right, vested of contingent, is conveyed by one party to another. Such arrangement precedes upon the assumption that one or other of the claimants as an antecedent title to the property in whole or in part or in unequal proportions. It has to be bear in mind that normally a family arrangement is not a transfer of property, for no right, vested of contingent, is conveyed by one party to another. Such arrangement precedes upon the assumption that one or other of the claimants as an antecedent title to the property in whole or in part or in unequal proportions. Further family arrangement rests not upon the transfer of a right, but upon the recognition of a claim. The family arrangement can as a matter of law be inferred from a long course of dealing between the parties. 22. I am, therefore, unable to accept the contention that the family arrangement in the case in hand, which has been accepted by both the Courts below, is not legal and valid as urged by Mr. D. N. Baruah, on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove that prior to such family arrangements there was any family dispute. The contention of Mr. Baruah that such family arrangement also requires registration has also no force as there is nothing on record that as a result of such arrangement any transfer of property took place. 23. Regarding the bonafide nature of the family arrangement in the case in hand I find that properties were distributed amongst all the legal representatives of Munsi Khan. On the basis of this family arrangement plaintiff got his name mutated long back, paid land revenue and also paid Municipal taxes since a long time and from this fact such family arrangement as pleaded by the plaintiff can be inferred. 24. Another point Mr. Baruah has urged that there is a variance between the pleading and the evidence. In this connection learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision of Privy Council in Hem Chand vs. Peareylal, AIR 1942 PC 64 wherein it was held that the parties should not be allowed to adduce evidence on the points riot raised in the pleadings without amending the pleadings. This is the settled position of law. Attention has also been drawn to a decision of the Apex Court in S. N. Ranade vs. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 24 wherein the Court held that as no allegation was made in the plaint no alternative case can be made out. In this connection Mr. This is the settled position of law. Attention has also been drawn to a decision of the Apex Court in S. N. Ranade vs. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 24 wherein the Court held that as no allegation was made in the plaint no alternative case can be made out. In this connection Mr. Baruah has drawn ray attention to the plaint and the evidence on record, more particularly evidence of PW 9. According to Mr. Lahiri, the material facts have been given as required under Order VI Rule 2 CPC in the plaint and the plaintiff has got right to adduce evidence to show that he became the sole owner. 24. I have considered the arguments advance before me and I have also per used the record and I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. Baruah, inasmuch as, plaintiff has pleaded in the plaint that the suit land originally belonged to his grand father late Munsi Khan and it devolved upon him by inheritance. It is true that the plaintiff has not specifically stated that how the property devolved upon him, but to prove such devolution, of property by family arrangements the plaintiff is entitled to lead evidence.I am; therefore, of the opinion that the contention of Mr. Baruah has no force. 26. For what has been stated above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs.