JUDGMENT Anima Hazarika, J. 1. The appellants herein who as plaintiffs brought a suit in the Court of the learned District Judge, Dibrugarh being T.S. No. 58/1991 titled as Md. Badaruddin Ahmed Vs. Md. Sirajul Haque, have questioned the legality and validity of the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dibrugarh in T.A. No. 1/1999 whereby and whereunder the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dibrugarh, allowed the appeal preferred by the defendant in the suit by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 11.01.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge, No. 1 (Junior Division), Dibrugarh in Title Suit No. 2/1995. Heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. N.C. Das, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. M. Devi, Advocate for the respondent. 2. The factual matrix of the case as pleaded is narrowed down as follows: The grandfather of the plaintiffs and uncle of the defendant Late Habib Khan died in the year 1974 leaving behind Mustt. Asgari Begum, widow of his son Samiullah Khan, who predeceased Habib Khan, leaving behind the plaintiffs, their mother and two daughters. The said Habib Khan allowed the defendant's father Rahmatulla Khan to stay in a house measuring 10 feet X 10 feet situated over the land described in Schedule 'B' of the plaint considering their poor financial condition free of rent. However, on the death of Habib Khan, the widow of Samiullah Khan and the plaintiffs allowed the father of the defendant to stay in the house till he can make his own arrangement elsewhere and the said Rahmatulla Khan died during the lifetime of Habib Khan and the present defendant/respondent continued to stay in the suit land. But after the death of Samiullah Khan, the properties left behind was duly mutated in the name of Asgari Begum on the basis of an oral gift. But after the death of Samiullah Khan, the properties left behind was duly mutated in the name of Asgari Begum on the basis of an oral gift. On repeated requests made by the plaintiffs to vacate the suit land, the defendant refused to vacate the same and rather he began to collect rent from three rooms belonging to the plaintiffs standing on the land described in Schedule 'A' and tried to grab vacant portion of the land measuring 50 feet X 30 feet in front of defendant's said occupied house, whereof the plaintiffs purchased the suit land and properties standing thereon from their mother by a registered sale deed on 26.07.1987 for an amount of Rs. 20,000/-. On 05.08.1987, the defendants started disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs, wherefor the cause of action arose for the suit seeking the following reliefs : (i) For declaration of plaintiffs' right, title and interest over the premises described in the Schedule A & B of the plaint. (ii) For an injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, servants and employees from making any construction over the land described in the Schedule 'A' of the plaint. (iii) For further injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, servants and employees from collecting rents from the tenants of the three rooms standing over the land described in the Schedule 'A' of the plaint. (iv) For eviction of the defendant and his dependents if any from the house described in the Schedule 'B' of the plaint by removing all his belongings therefrom. (v) For all counts of the suit and (vi) For any further or other relief to which the plaintiffs are found entitled to in law and equity. 3. The defendant on receipt of the summons has entered appearance and contested the suit by filing the written statement taking all the grounds available under Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure [hereinafter referred to as the 'Code', for short] and the real facts of the case is pleaded as follows:- The suit property belongs to the great grandfather of the plaintiffs and grand father of the defendant Babar Ali Khan who purchased the disputed land on 23.04.1930 by a registered sale deed from one Gonda Mali and thereby claimed the property in dispute as ancestral wherein the construction of dwelling houses were made for the family. The father of the plaintiffs and the father of the defendant are sons of Babar Ali Khan and were residing together as joint family on the disputed suit land, though the third son of Babar Ali Khan, Amirullah Khan was living separately and settled at Tinsukia. The aforesaid Babar Ali Khan died in the year 1940-41 leaving behind Habib Khan, Amirullah Khan and Rahamatullah Khan. The father of the defendant Rahamatullah Khan died during the lifetime of Habib Khan and his mother Sakina Bibi died leaving behind the only son, the defendant. In the year 1954-55, the defendant, during the life time of both Habib Khan, his grandfather and father Rahamatullah Khan, constructed an independent house on the south western part of the suit land with three (3) rooms as his own property and rented out the same which was covered by Municipal Holding No. 616A, now Holding No. 500, which is described in the Schedule of the written statement and hence prayed for dismissal of the suit with cost. 4. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :- (1) Whether the suit is maintainable in law and facts? (2) Whether the suit is barred by principle of waiver, acquiescence and estoppel? (3) Is the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? (4) Is there any cause of action for the suit? (5) Is the plaintiff entitled to any relief as prayed for? (6) Whether the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit land? (7) To what relief the parties are entitled to? 5. During the trial, the plaintiffs side have examined three (3) witnesses and the defendant examined two witnesses. Both the parties exhibited certain documents in support of their respective claim. 6. The learned trial Court while deciding the issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3 has held that the question of maintainability of the suit, limitation or non-joinder of necessary parties, save and except raising the pleas the defendant could not substantiate the pleas of non-maintainability, non-joinder and limitation though burden lies on him and hence, answered in favour of the plaintiffs. 7. 1, 2 and 3 has held that the question of maintainability of the suit, limitation or non-joinder of necessary parties, save and except raising the pleas the defendant could not substantiate the pleas of non-maintainability, non-joinder and limitation though burden lies on him and hence, answered in favour of the plaintiffs. 7. While deciding the issue No. 6 the learned trial Court has held, that the defendant has failed to establish his right, title end interest over the suit land whereas the plaintiffs as a proof of their right, title and interest have exhibited the original sale deed vide Ext.-I executed by their mother on 26.07.1987 on the basis of oral gift made by the father of the plaintiffs whereupon vide Ext.-2, the name of Habib Khan was mutated in place of Rahamatullah against which an appeal filed before the Assam Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue vacated the previous orders passed by DC in Appeal Case No. 12 for the year 1963-64 and S.D.C.'s mutation case No. 817 of 1945-46, Case No. 161 of 1962-63 and Case No. 185 of 1961-62 passed in favour of Rahamatullah. Moreover, though DW 1 Shri Sirajul Haque in his deposition has claimed that the land in question is their paternal property which was purchased by their grandfather Babar Ali Khan in the year 1930 through a registered sale deed No. 651 dated 24.04.1930 vide Ext. Ka i.e. the certified copy of the sale deed which is supported by DW 2 Mr. Kamal Chandra Konwar and as a paternal property he has got his right to get his share and the mutation in favour of Habib Khan was followed by objection both by Rahamatullah and Aminullah but during the pendency of the hearing of objection petition in the mutation case, Aminullah died and it was dropped. The learned trial Court disbelieved the story put forward by the defendant as he failed to substantiate the claim by giving proof of documentary evidence and accordingly decided the issue in favour of the plaintiffs holding that the gift made by the donor Habib Khan in favour of the donee Mustt. Asgari Begum was accepted by the donee and consequently thereupon sold the land to the plaintiffs at a valuable consideration, whereas the defendant failed to establish the property where he is staying is his parental property because the document relied on vide Ext. Asgari Begum was accepted by the donee and consequently thereupon sold the land to the plaintiffs at a valuable consideration, whereas the defendant failed to establish the property where he is staying is his parental property because the document relied on vide Ext. Ka has not been proved with the original. 8. Relating to issue Nos. 4, 5 and 7, the learned trial Court has held that since the defendant has foiled either to cancel the name of Asgari Begum from mutating her name or failed to cancel the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs by Asgari Begum though claimed to be his ancestral property but failed to establish his right, title and interest over the disputed land beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. 9. Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree rendered by the learned trial Court, the defendant took the matter on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Dibrugarh. The learned appellate Court took up the following points for decision whereof the legality of the judgment and decree has been questioned :- (1) Whether the issue No. 3 is decided property by the learned lower Court? (2) Whether the learned lower Court committed error by not taking Ext. 'Ka' into account, which is a document of more than 30 years old and thereby caused injustice to the appellant? (3) Whether the gift made in favour of Asgari Begum, the mother of the respondents/plaintiffs by Habib Khan is valid and enforceable in law? (4) Whether the disposition of the, suit land to the respondents/plaintiffs by their mother Asgari Begum by way of sale is valid and enforceable in law? (5) Whether mutation confers the right to possession of land? (6) Whether any other relief can be given under Order 41, Rule 33, CPC? 10. The learned appellate Court while deciding the point No. 2 has discussed the provisions of primary evidence, secondary evidence followed by the provisions of Registration Act relating to Ext. Ka which is admittedly 30 years old documents purchased by grandfather of the appellants/defendants and great grand father of the plaintiffs/respondents Babar Ali, on 23.04.1930 whereof when it was introduced as Ext. Ka which is admittedly 30 years old documents purchased by grandfather of the appellants/defendants and great grand father of the plaintiffs/respondents Babar Ali, on 23.04.1930 whereof when it was introduced as Ext. 'ka' there was no objection being the certified copy of the sale deed, which, however, has been proved by official of the Sub-Registry, examined as DW 2 and confirmed that Ext-Ka was duly issued from their office being entered in Book No. 1. Thus, the book in the registration office where copies of sale deeds admitted to registration are public document and when the original sale deed, whose copy is maintained in the registration office is lost, secondary evidence can be given in respect of the contents thereof by providing the entry in the register in the registration office and instead of proving the entry in the register in original, certified copy of entry of the sale deed in such register can be proved and therefore no objection can be raised for admitting certified copy of entry in a book maintained in the registration office as secondary evidence of the contents of a sale deed in case ground for admitting secondary evidence is made out holding that Ext. 'Ka' is true and genuine document and thereby interfered with the decision relating to Ext. Ka rendered by the learned trial Court. 11. The pleaded facts made out in the plaint that the entire disputed land has been gifted away orally to Mustt. Asgari Begum, the learned appellate Court has discussed in point No. 3. The evidence on record, more particularly the evidence of the plaintiff Badruddin Ahmed would demonstrate that the plaintiff had admitted that the defendant has a separate house in the southern side of the disputed land, which the defendant has let out to tenant and the holding in Municipality stands in the name of the defendant and the defendant pays the house tax for the holding. It has further been admitted that the defendant has been residing in two rooms of the ancestral property since 1957-58 and the municipality holding is separate from their own. Further-more, the second plaintiff Md. It has further been admitted that the defendant has been residing in two rooms of the ancestral property since 1957-58 and the municipality holding is separate from their own. Further-more, the second plaintiff Md. Abdullah Khan has deposed that since his birth he saw the defendant and his father Rahamatullah Khan were residing over the disputed land and the said witness has specifically admitted in his deposition that the defendant was possessing the disputed land at the time of making the gift, which, thus, conclusively proves that one of the ingredient of the gift is missing and thereby interfered with the decision rendered by the learned trial Court. 12. In view of the findings arrived at by the learned appellate Court at point No. 3, the gift deed made to Mustt. Asgari Begum is not valid and enforceable in law and consequently thereupon the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs by their mother Mustt. Asgari Begum has no valid sanction under the law, more so, when the delivery of possession was not handed over to the plaintiffs at the time of execution of sale and hence the alienation of disputed properties by Mustt. Asgari Begum is not valid and as such interfered with the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court. 13. While discussing the point No. 5, the learned appellate Court has held that Ext. 2 certified copy of Jamabandi though shows that the disputed land was recorded in the name of Mustt. Asgari Begum, the same, however, does not confer any title on the land whereof the right to possession of the disputed land is not established and thus answered the point accordingly. 14. Relating to point No. 1 the appellate Court has held that Babar Ali Khan had three sons viz., (1) Habib Khan, (2) Rahamatullah Khan and (3) Amirullah Khan wherein the disputed land was purchased by Babar Ali Khan and on his demise, the sons of Babar Ali Khan would succeed to the properties left out by the deceased Babar Ali Khan. But the suit was filed without adding Amirullah Khan or his legal heirs as parties to the suit and hence held that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party, wherefor the appeal was allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and hence the Regular Second Appeal challenging the legality and validity of the judgment rendered by the first appellate Court. 15. While admitting the appeal this Court has formulated the following substantial questions of law :- (1) Whether the impugned judgment and decree is bad for non-compliance of the Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC? (2) Whether the first appellate Court was justified in relying the Ext. Ka which was not adduced in original and when no whisper has been made that the original was lost? (3) Whether first appellate Court was justified in decreeing the appeal and dismissing the suit on the basis of Ext. Ka which had subsequently merged on the registration of the name of Habib Khan under Section 50 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation 1886 and thereafter gift of the said property to Mrs. Asgari Begum to the appellant more particularly when the subsequent transfer were not declared by any competent Court as illegal and void? (4) Whether the first appellate Court was justified in applying the principle that mere entry in the record of right do not confer any right to possession in the instant case? (5) Whether mere non-joinder of party which are not necessary for a just decision of the suit renders the suit bad for non-joinder of party and liable to be dismissed? (6) Whether the first appellate Court committed gross error of law in considering application of law relating to gift in the instant case? (7) Any other substantial question of law that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal? 16. Advancing the argument on behalf of the appellants Mr. (6) Whether the first appellate Court committed gross error of law in considering application of law relating to gift in the instant case? (7) Any other substantial question of law that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal? 16. Advancing the argument on behalf of the appellants Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned counsel would contend that a reading of the plaint would demonstrate that no relief has been sought against Amirullah Khan in respect of controversies involved in the suit and decree can be passed in his absence and the plaintiff in a suit being dominus litis cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief and as such the finding arrived at by the leaned appellate Court that Amirullah Khan or his legal representatives having not been made party to the suit, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party require interference under Section 100 of the Code. 17. Mr. Saikia, learned counsel would contend that in absence of primary evidence the secondary evidence can be led, subject to fulfillment of the provisions of Section 65 of the Evidence Act, whereas, Ext. ka when introduced during the trial lacks the conditions enumerated in Section 65 of the Evidence Act, and as such the findings arrived at by the learned appellate Court holding that Ext. Ka is genuine and valid document requires interference being perverse. 18. Mr. Saikia would further contend that the name of Habib Khan, father of the plaintiffs having been registered under Section 50 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation 1886 whereof the oral gift is made to his wife Mustt. Asgari Begum who had subsequently transferred the land by deed of sale to the plaintiffs beyond the purview of the appellate Court when the same is not challenged before any competent Court and as such the decree passed relying on Ext. Ka by the appellate Court require interference under appellate jurisdiction of this Court. 19. Mr. Saikia the learned counsel would contend that the learned appellate Court has committed an error apparent on the face of the record in holding that mere entry in the record of right do not confer any right to possession which is perverse and the same is liable to be set aside and quashed. 20. In support of his contentions, Mr. Saikia the learned counsel would contend that the learned appellate Court has committed an error apparent on the face of the record in holding that mere entry in the record of right do not confer any right to possession which is perverse and the same is liable to be set aside and quashed. 20. In support of his contentions, Mr. Saikia has placed reliance on the following decisions :- (1) (2010) 7 SCC 417 : Mumbai International Airport Private Ltd. Vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Ltd. & Ors., (2) (2005) 6 SCC 733 : Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal & Ors., (3) (2009) 6 SCC 160 : Abdul Rahim & Ors., Vs. Sk. Abdul Zabar & Ors., (4) AIR 1966 SC 1194 : Maqbool Alam Khan Vs. Mst. Khodaija & Ors., (5) 2000 (3) GLT 453: Paramesh Sarmah & Ors. Vs. Islam Ali & Ors., (6) 1998 (4) GLT 137: Amiya Bala Dutta Vs. Mukut Adhikari & Ors. (7) 2011 (1) GLT 33: Camrus Zaman Ghafoor Pariat Vs. Union of India & Ors., (8) 2007 (3) GLT 191: Ved Mitra. Verma Vs. Dharma Deoverma & Anr., 21. Countering the attack, Mr. N.C. Das, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Ms. M. Devi, Advocate representing the defendant/respondent in the appeal would contend that Ext. Ka was introduced without any objection which is a 30 years old document and thereby attracted presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act and it had to be treated as clinching evidence, regarding which the appellate Court has rightly held that Ext. Ka is admissible evidence because the entry in the registration book has been proved by the official of the Sub-Registrar's office DW 2 deposing and proving the execution of the original Ext. Ka and confirmed that Ext. Ka was duly issued from their office and its genuineness cannot be doubted in its true perspective and on the basis of Ext. Ka along with the deposition of PW 1 Badaruddin Ahmed and PW 2 Md. Abdullah Khan allowed the appeal which do not require to be interfered with being the finding of facts rendered by the first appellate Court in the instant Regular Second Appeal. 22. Mr. Ka along with the deposition of PW 1 Badaruddin Ahmed and PW 2 Md. Abdullah Khan allowed the appeal which do not require to be interfered with being the finding of facts rendered by the first appellate Court in the instant Regular Second Appeal. 22. Mr. Das, learned Senior counsel has submitted that it was the duty of the plaintiffs/appellants to prove that while making the oral gift the donor had valid title and possession over the property in question when it was an admitted fact that the defendants were in possession of the said gifted land. When this burden is not discharged by the plaintiffs that their vendor, the mother did not have a valid title over the suit land, therefore, this burden is not shifted to the defendants. So far as Ext. ka is concerned, the plaintiffs measurably failed to prove that the land in question was the self acquired property of their father and not inherited from the predecessor-in-interest of Ext. ka. Admittedly the oral gift was made during the lifetime of the grandfather and therefore, the decision. In Amiya Bola Dutta {199B (4) GLT 137} (supra) would not help the appellants. Mr. Das has further submitted that there is no error on the part of the learned lower appellate Court in reversing the finding of the trial Court and therefore, the said appellate judgment needs to be upheld by this Court. I find sufficient force in the argument advanced by the learned Senior counsel. That being the position, the findings as made above covers the other substantial questions of law raised in this appeal. 23. Mr. Das has referred the following decisions in support of his contentions :- (1) (2004) 8 SCC 270 : Cement Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Purya & Ors. (2) AIR 1943 PC 83: Gopal Das & Anr. Vs. Sri Thakurji & Ors. (3) 2001 (3) GLR 594: Bodhan Paul Vs. Paresh Chandra Ghosh (4) (2000) 6 SCC 735 : Marwari Kumhar & Ors. Vs. Bhagwanpuri Guru Ganeshpuri & Anr. (5) AIR 1979 Gau 14 : Md. Saimuddin Shiekh Vs. Abejuddin Shiekh (6) (2008) 2 SCC 186 : Desh Raj Vs. Bodh Raj (7) 1997 (3) GLR 17: Surendra Kr. Paul & Ors. Vs. Pramila Das (8) (2011) 5 SCC 654 : Hafeeza Bibi & Ors. Vs. Shaikh Farid (Dead) by LRs & Ors. (9) AIR 1984 Gau 41 : Md. Saimuddin Shiekh Vs. Abejuddin Shiekh (6) (2008) 2 SCC 186 : Desh Raj Vs. Bodh Raj (7) 1997 (3) GLR 17: Surendra Kr. Paul & Ors. Vs. Pramila Das (8) (2011) 5 SCC 654 : Hafeeza Bibi & Ors. Vs. Shaikh Farid (Dead) by LRs & Ors. (9) AIR 1984 Gau 41 : Md. Hesabuddin & Ors. Vs. Md. Hesaruddin & Ors. (10) AIR 1966 SC 1194 : Maqbool Alam Khan Vs. Mst. Khodaija & Ors. (11) AIR 1960 SC 1368 : Radhakrishan Laxminarayan Toshniwal Vs. Sridhar Ramchandra Alshi & Ors. (12) AIR 1989 Ori 27 : Ramchandra Majhi Vs. Hambai Majhi (13) (1999) 1 GLT 30: Manendra Kumar Dey & Ors. Vs. Mahendra Suklabaidya & Ors. (14) AIR 1994 SC 227 : Guru Amarjit Singh Vs. Rattan Chand & Ors. 24. Considered the arguments advanced by the contesting parties. Perused the evidence on record including the judgments rendered by both the Courts below. Now the first question is required to answer as to whether Ext. Ka is admissible in evidence and if so whether it can be treated as clinching evidence. Admittedly, the parties to the suit are Muhammadan by caste and they are guided by Muhammadan law. The facts pleaded in the plaint is that late Habib Khan was the grand father of the plaintiffs and uncle of the defendant whereas the facts set up in the written statement by the defendant is that late Babar Ali Khan, the great grand father of the plaintiffs and the grand father of the defendant in the year 1930 purchased an area of land measuring 1B 2K 2L which constituted the suit land from one Gonda Mali vide registered sale deed being No. 651 of 1930 on 23.04.1930. The certified copy of the aforesaid sale deed dated 23.04.1930 was introduced during the trial and marked as Ext. Ka without any objection. The said Ext. Ka was proved by DW 1 followed by DW 2 who is an official of the concerned Sub-Registry office. While deposing, DW 2 has duty proved the execution of original of Ext. Ka by exhibiting the official record and confirmed that Ext. Ka was duly issued from the Sub-Registry office. Therefore, the evidence led by the defendant in connection with Ext. While deposing, DW 2 has duty proved the execution of original of Ext. Ka by exhibiting the official record and confirmed that Ext. Ka was duly issued from the Sub-Registry office. Therefore, the evidence led by the defendant in connection with Ext. Ka demonstrate that the property in dispute was ancestral and on the death of Babar Ali Khan, the entire property would go to his three sons viz., Habib Khan, Rahamatullah Khan and Aminullah Khan, by right of inheritance. Therefore, the decision cited in Paramesh Sarmah (2000 (3) GLT 453) (supra) and Camrus Zaman (2011 (1) GLT 33) (supra) do not in any way effect the admissibility of Ext. Ka, more so, when no objection has been raised during the time of introduction of Ext. Ka. 25. The foundation of the suit as averred in the plaint would disclose that Samiullah Khan, son of Habib Khan predeceased him and the properties left by him were gifted orally to his wife Asgari Begum and her name was mutated, who sold out the properties to the plaintiffs, who have brought the suit for eviction of the defendants from A and B Schedule land of the plaint establishing their right, title and interest. But the real gift in favour of the mother of the plaintiffs lacks one of the conditions enumerated under Chapter XI of Muhammadan law. Section 152 of Chapter XI of Muhammadan law specifically provides delivery of possession of immovable property. A gift indisputably becomes complete when a person transfers with immediate effect the ownership of his movable or immovable property to another person and that other person himself or someone else with his consent takes possession of the property gifted, whereof in the instant case, delivery of possession by the donor to the donee in fact did not take place. Under Muhammadan law, it is a contract which takes effect through offer and acceptance. The fact of delivery of possession to the donee as would reveal from the deposition of PW 1 and PW 2 demolished the case of the plaintiff relating to oral gift and the Court would concur with the decision of the learned appellate Court. Under Muhammadan law, it is a contract which takes effect through offer and acceptance. The fact of delivery of possession to the donee as would reveal from the deposition of PW 1 and PW 2 demolished the case of the plaintiff relating to oral gift and the Court would concur with the decision of the learned appellate Court. Therefore, the decisions cited in Abdul Rahim, {(2009) 6 SCC} 160 (supra) and in Maqbool Alam Khan ( AIR 1966 SC 1194 ) (supra) would not help the appellants as it would reveal that the donor though makes a declaration of oral gift even if accepted, the donor does nothing else to transfer the possession to the donee wherefor the gift became in valid. 26. Under the law of inheritance under Muhammadan law, there are three classes of heirs viz. (1) Sharers, (2) Residuaries and (3) Distant Kindred. The entitlement of share under law of inheritance prescribed in the following way :- (1) "Sharers" are those who are entitled to a prescribed share of the inheritance. (2) "Residuaries" are those who take no prescribed share, but succeed to the 'residue' after the claims of the blood sharers are satisfied. (3) "Distant Kindred" are all those relations by blood who are neither Sharers nor Residuaries. In the instant case, three sons, namely, Habib Khan, Rahamatullah Khan and Amirullah Khan of Babar Ali Khan succeeded to the properties of late Babar Ali Khan on his demise and accordingly, each of the sons would get their respective share since under the Muhammadan law there is no such thing as a joint Muhammadan family nor does the law recognize a tenancy in common in a Muhammadan family and each heirs under the 'column of sharers' would get their respective share as provided under the Muhammadan law. The plaintiffs have claimed the entire properties of the Schedule land as their properties whereof they cannot claim the entire properties left by Babar Ali Khan. Admittedly, the third son of Babar Ali Khan, i.e. Amirullah Khan was not made party to be suit though Amirullah Khan or his legal representative have definite share in the properties left out by Babar Ali Khan and hence the Court has no hesitation to hold the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and on this ground alone the suit must fail as has been held by the learned lower appellate Court. The decisions cited in Mumbai International Airport, { (2010) 7 SCC 417 } (supra), Kasturi, ( (2005) 6 SCC 733 ) (supra) and Ved Verma, (2007 (3) GLT 191) (supra) would not rescue the appellants since the foundation of the plaint lacks non-joinder of necessary party. 27. From the corollary of the entire facts as narrated hereinabove, the Court has no hesitation to concur with the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate Court whereof no interference is called for. In the result, the appeal deserves to be dismissed which I hereby do. The parties are left to bear their own costs. 28. Since the appeal is dismissed, the decisions cited on behalf of the respondent have not been discussed to avoid burdening the judgment. Send down the lower Court records. Appeal dismissed.