Judgment : Sudip Ahluwalia, J. 1. This Revisional Application is directed against the Judgment passed by the Ld. Additional District & Sessions Judge, 5th Court, Barasat in Title Appeal No. 67 of 2011 of the said Court on 27.04.2012. 2. In the impugned Judgment the Ld. Additional District Judge had been pleased to dismiss the appeal preferred by the petitioner, and had upheld an earlier Order passed by the Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division) First Court at Barasat in Title Suit No. 250 of 2008 of the said Court, whereby the Plaint filed by the petitioner as Plaintiff had been rejected under Or. VII, R. 11 of the C.P Code. 3. The background of the matter is that the petitioner filed the suit in the Trial Court by claiming that her father Sri Jiban Krishna Mondal was the sole owner of certain lands in Mouja Noapara as described in Para-1 of the plaint. After his death, his wife Jamunabala Mondal and three daughters including the petitioner/plaintiff inherited said property in equal shares, but the Records were wrongly drawn up in the name of Smt. Jamunabala Mondal alone. 4. Taking advantage of such erroneous Record of Rights the defendants by exercising some undue influence and misrepresentation of facts upon Jamunabala Mondal made her to execute a purported Deed of Trust which was executed and registered on 08.12.1992, the full particulars of which Trust Deed have been described in Schedule-B to the Plaint. Thereafter the Rajarhat Megacity Project acquired some portion of the said property while the remaining lands are in possession of the defendants and the plaintiff. Further contention of the petitioner is that the alleged Deed of Trust imposed certain obligations upon the Trustees which were never complied with by them. In any event, she further contends that the settler Jamunabala Mondal herself had no Right and/or capacity to dispose off the entire property by way of Trust or Sale, or to transfer it in any other manner, since she had her individual Right only in 1/4th share of the same. The petitioner later came to know that the defendants/OPs contacted some Company to install a hoarding on the Suit property which has been described in Schedule-A to the original plaint. The petitioner requested them to desist from doing so, but they paid no heed. The petitioner later came to know that the defendants/OPs contacted some Company to install a hoarding on the Suit property which has been described in Schedule-A to the original plaint. The petitioner requested them to desist from doing so, but they paid no heed. So, the petitioner filed the Suit for declaration of her 1/4th share in the disputed property, apart from separate declarations that the alleged Deed of Trust was collusive and did not create any Rights in favour of the defendants, and also for a permanent injunction to restrain them and their agents from letting out any part or portion of the said property, or from installing any hoarding, or changing the nature of the same. 5. On behalf of the defendant No. 1 which filed its Written Statement denying all the material allegations made in the plaint, a separate application was also filed, praying for dismissal of the Suit on the ground that the “Atghara Noapara Barowari Puja Committee” is an Unregistered Body against which the Suit is not Maintainable under provisions of the Societies Registration Act. It was further contented in the said application that the petitioner was not entitled to any inheritance in respect of the disputed properties as per prevail Hindu Succession Act, on account of which also the suit was not maintainable. 6. In allowing such petition of the defendant/OP the Ld. Trial Court vide its Order No. 26 dated 10.05.2011 dismissed the suit by holding it non-maintainable in view of the fact that it had been filed against an Unregistered Society. But the Trial Court did not make any observation on the other assertion that the plaintiff/petitioner was not entitled to inherit any share in the suit property due to any bar on account of provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. 7. Such decision of the Trial Court was upheld by the Ld. Appellate Court which also held that in as much as the defendant No. 1 was an unregistered society, so no Suit against it was maintainable in view of the decision of this Court in the case of “Gandhabanik Mahasabha & Anr. Vs. Gandhabanik Mahasabha, Bardhaman Sakha Samity & Anr.'” [ 2010(1) CHN 21 ]. 8. As already noted earlier, the reason for which the Ld. Vs. Gandhabanik Mahasabha, Bardhaman Sakha Samity & Anr.'” [ 2010(1) CHN 21 ]. 8. As already noted earlier, the reason for which the Ld. Courts below found the suit non-maintainable was that it was filed against defendant No. 1 which has no legal entity, not being a registered Society. In support of this view both the Ld. Courts below had relied upon the aforesaid decision of a Division Bench of this Court in which it had been held that, “Suit by unregistered society without joining all the members individually as plaintiffs or without the leave of the Court under Or. I, R.8 of the CP Court is not maintainable.” 9. In addition the Ld. Appellate Court has referred to another Division Bench decision of this Court passed in the case of “Usha Rani Kundu Vs. Agradut Sangha & Ors.” [ 2006 (3) CHN 77 ] in which also it was observed that “in absence of registration a society cannot claim legal existence. Sec.5 of Transfer of Property Act defines the expression of ‘Transfer of property’ and living person” in section 5 includes a company or association or body of individuals”. In the said case, one Usha Rani purchased a plot of land from one Murari and a Club namely “Agradut Sangha” claimed Pre-emption. The preliminary objection was taken as to the maintainability of application for Preemption as the transfer by erstwhile owner in favour of Club the adjoining and contiguous land could not be treated to be a valid, as, on the date of transfer, the said club was not registered under the Societies Registration Act and therefore, it was observed by the Hon’ble Division Bench that neither the club nor its secretary could acquire any title to the land in question and therefore, no suit could be brought either for or against the said club as the club is not a juridical person.” 10. However what appears to have escaped the attention of the Ld. Courts below is that in both the above referred cases the basic original claims in the form of a Suit as well as an application in a Pre-emption case, were filed on behalf of and not against an Unregistered Body or Society. On the other hand in the present case, the concerned Unregistered Society happens to be the principal defendant No. 1, and not the plaintiff. On the other hand in the present case, the concerned Unregistered Society happens to be the principal defendant No. 1, and not the plaintiff. To that extent, there is a subtle distinguishing factor in the present case. Of course, in Usha Rani Kundu’s matter (supra) it was also the Division Bench’s observation that a claim likewise against an unregistered body is unsustainable. 11. But in the given fact and circumstances the ratio of the aforesaid two decisions would not exactly apply to the present case because here the claim of the plaintiff is that the alleged unregistered Puja Committee (defendant No. 1) is actually a sham entity having no lawful or bona fide status, and the plaintiff has even sought for a specific declaration that the alleged Deed of Trust vide which the concerned committee was construed is altogether fraudulent and without any legality. As such, the fact of the defendant No. 1 being unregistered would only strengthen the plaintiff’s claim regarding the same being a sham entity, instead of having the opposite effect of rendering her suit non-maintainable on the ground that it is an unregistered body. 12. Even otherwise, the Apex Court has held in “Singhai Lal Chand Jain (dead), V. Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh, Panna and Others” [ AIR 1996 SC 1211 ] that a decree passed in a suit filed against an unregistered body through its Manager, President and Member who had diligently prosecuted the matter is not a nullity, and would be binding upon all members of such body. 13. Besides, the maintainability of the suit in the present case has to be read in the context of the nature of claim made by the plaintiff. She has alleged that she happens to be one of the three daughters of the deceased Sri Jiban Krishna Mondal, who was also survived by his wife Jamunabala Mondal along with those daughters. As such, all four of them had equal shares in the properties left by him. Therefore any settlement by way of a Trust Deed of the suit property left behind by the deceased by his widow all by herself, without separating the respective shares of her daughters was apparently illegal and improper. As such, all four of them had equal shares in the properties left by him. Therefore any settlement by way of a Trust Deed of the suit property left behind by the deceased by his widow all by herself, without separating the respective shares of her daughters was apparently illegal and improper. The plaintiff has therefore filed the Suit challenging the legality and validity of the alleged Trust Deed (Schedule-B to the Plaint) through the self-styled President/Office Bearer of the unregistered body, which, by the Petitioner's own assertion, is in fact a sham entity. This Court therefore filed finds no impropriety in the suit so framed, wherein basically the Plaintiff seeks to assert her own Right, Title and Interest in respect of to 1/ 4th share of the property allegedly settled through the dubious Registered Trust Deed (Schedule-B) by her mother Jamunabala Mondal. 14. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that the suit has not been filed only against an unregistered body, i.e. the defendant No. 1 alone, but there are three other specific defendants (2 to 4) named in the plaint against whom various relief(s) have been prayed for. So even academically assuming that the Suit against the defendant No. 1 alone was not maintainable for the reason as claimed, still that would not have the effect of rendering the same non-maintainable as against the remaining three defendants. It may be remembered that according to Or. I , R. 9 of the CP Code, a Suit fails in the absence of any necessary party, but not due to mis-joinder of an unnecessary party. At the most, the name of such a party may be struck out under Or. I, R.10 (2). 15. For the above reasons this Court finds merit in the instant application which is accordingly allowed. Parties to bear their own Costs. The impugned judgment passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Barasat is accordingly set aside and it is held that the Suit at this stage appears to be maintainable in its present form. 16. The Ld. Trial Court is requested to complete Trial of the original Title Suit in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. No observation made anywhere in this Order is however to be construed as casting any reflection upon merits of the case to be finally decided after Trial.