ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. A.C. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants. Also heard Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiff. 2. This appeal by the defendants is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Golaghat in Title Appeal No. 8/2004 affirming the judgment and decree dated 22.06.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No.1, Golaghat in Title Suit No. 12/2000. 3. The plaintiff had filed the suit for right, title and interest and for recovery of khas possession in respect of Schedule “A” and Schedule “B’ land. Schedule “A” land measures 21 Bigha 3 Lecha and Schedule “B” measures 12 Bigha 2 Katha 10 Lecha. 4. The case of the plaintiff is that part of Schedule “A” land measuring 10 Bigha 2 Katha 12 Lecha was sold by Ladu Majhi, father of defendant No. 2, to the plaintiff by executing a registered sale deed dated 18.06.1982 and he was delivered possession. On that very day, Ladu Majhi had also executed a registered sale deed in respect of Schedule “B” land and delivered possession to the plaintiff. After about 10 years, on 07.01.1992, by registered sale deed, the defendant No.1 sold to the plaintiff the rest of the land in Schedule “A” measuring 10 Bigha 2 Katha 11 Lecha. While the plaintiff was in possession, on 16.05.1997, defendants dispossessed him, which prompted the plaintiff to institute a proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P.C. being Misc. Case No. 6/1997. Though initially land was attached, final orders were passed on 30.07.1997 declaring possession in favour of the second party (defendants). 5. In the written statement filed, plea was taken by the defendants that the plaintiff would have to prove that he had purchased the suit land from the successors of Lakhi Majhi. Plea was taken that Ladu Majhi died leaving behind not only defendant No.2 but also four daughters and they ought to have been made parties. Plea was also taken that the suit was bad for non-joinder of heirs of Ladu Majhi, who were necessary parties. Plea of adverse possession was also set up. 6. The plaintiff proved the sale deeds in question without any objection as Exts-1, 2 and 3. 7. On consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Plea of adverse possession was also set up. 6. The plaintiff proved the sale deeds in question without any objection as Exts-1, 2 and 3. 7. On consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The appellate Court also affirmed the findings of the learned Trial Court. 8. The second appeal was admitted to be heard by an order dated 23.08.2006 on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the learned lower appellate Court erred in law in shifting the burden to prove the non-joinder of necessary parties to the defendants? 2. Whether the learned trial Court failed to protect the right of the minor defendants as provided under Order 32 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure? 3. Whether the learned lower appellate Court erred in law in holding that the suit is within the period of limitation?” 9. At the hearing, Mr. Sarma has submitted that he will not be pressing substantial question of law No.2. It is submitted by Mr. Sarma that Ladu Majhi having left behind four daughters, it was necessary for the plaintiff to have impleaded them as parties to the suit and he having not done so, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties when the admitted case of the plaintiff was that part of Schedule “A” and Schedule “B” land was sold by Ladu Majhi. 10. Mr. Sarma, in this connection, has drawn the attention of the Court to an order dated 25.02.2002 passed by the learned Trial Court in response to a petition filed by the plaintiff praying for a direction to the defendants to furnish the names and addresses of the four daughters left behind by Ladu Majhi as mentioned in paragraph 9 of the written statement. It is also submitted that if the names of legal heirs are not known, plaintiff is to take recourse to the provision as contained in the Order 22 Rule 4(A) C.P.C. 11. On the aspect of adverse possession, learned counsel for the appellants submits that evidence on record would demonstrate that the defendants were in possession for more than 20 years and therefore, the courts below were not correct in holding that suit was not barred by limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act. 12. Mr. On the aspect of adverse possession, learned counsel for the appellants submits that evidence on record would demonstrate that the defendants were in possession for more than 20 years and therefore, the courts below were not correct in holding that suit was not barred by limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act. 12. Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, Order 22 Rule 4(A) C.P.C. will not come into picture as defendant No.2, who is a son of Ladu Majhi, is on record. He has submitted that there is no proof that Ladu Majhi had really left behind four daughters as it is inconceivable that a brother will not know the names of the sisters, as recorded in the order of the learned Trial Court dated 25.02.2002. It is submitted that once a stand was taken by the defendant that Ladu Majhi had left behind four daughters, the plaintiff made earnest efforts to bring them on record by praying for a direction from the court to the defendants to disclose their names and addresses. In these circumstances, when they refused to divulge the names, there is no question of the suit being liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. With regard to the plea of adverse possession, the learned counsel submits that both the courts below, on due appraisal on the evidence on record, found no merit in the case of the defendants with regard to their plea of adverse possession. On the reading of the written statement itself, it is crystal clear that the plaintiff was dispossessed by the defendants while the plaintiff was in possession, learned counsel submits. They have also not disclosed on what date their possession had become hostile, he asserts. 13. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 14. The defendants had taken the plea of non-joinder of necessary parties by stating that four daughters of Ladu Majhi were not made parties. Perusal of the order dated 25.02.2002 of the learned Trial Court goes to show that the learned trial Court observed that as Ladu Majhi was not made a party to the suit, the question of substitution of his legal heirs did not arise. Perusal of the order dated 25.02.2002 of the learned Trial Court goes to show that the learned trial Court observed that as Ladu Majhi was not made a party to the suit, the question of substitution of his legal heirs did not arise. The learned Trial Court dismissed the petition of the plaintiff on the ground that the defendants were not aware of the names of the four daughters of Ladu Majhi. To say the least, the order dated 25.02.2002 is contradictory. It is to be noted that the plaint itself disclosed that Ladu Majhi was no more by the time the suit came to be filed and, as such, son of Ladu Majhi, defendant No.2, was arrayed as a party. The trial Court in the later part of the order also noted Ladu Majhi as “Late Ladu Majhi”. A brother not knowing the names of his sisters is a stand which is difficult to swallow. There is no material to hold that, in fact, Ladu Majhi left behind four daughters. It is not a case as formulated in the substantial question of law No.1 that the burden was shifted to the defendants to prove non-joinder of necessary parties. Non-joinder of necessary parties is a plea to be taken by the defendants with material particulars and it will not suffice to make an omnibus statement that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties on account of some heirs of some person being not made parties. Worse, on a request made by the plaintiff, the defendants feigned ignorance and pleaded that defendant No. 2 is not aware of the names of his sisters. Order 22 Rule 4(A) C.P.C. is on a different plank altogether and clearly this provision is not attracted. Order 22 Rule 4(A) C.P.C. lays down the procedure to be adopted where there is no legal representative of a party who has died during the pendency of the suit. Ladu Majhi had his legal representative in the form of defendant No. 2, who was a party at the time of filing of the suit and he continues to remain on record at the stage of second appeal. Therefore, substantial question of law No. 1 is answered against the appellant in terms of the above. 15. Ladu Majhi had his legal representative in the form of defendant No. 2, who was a party at the time of filing of the suit and he continues to remain on record at the stage of second appeal. Therefore, substantial question of law No. 1 is answered against the appellant in terms of the above. 15. In paragraph 12 of the written statement, it is pleaded by the defendants that the plaintiff’s right on the suit land is extinguished for non-continuation of possession by the plaintiff as well as possession of the defendants. In paragraph 19, averments are made that a Section 145 Cr. P.C. proceeding was initiated to recover possession. Non-continuation of possession by the plaintiff itself connotes that the plaintiff was in possession, as, if there was no possession, the question of non-continuation could not have arisen. It is to be borne in mind that the third sale deed was executed in respect of a part of Schedule “A” land in the year 1992 after two sale deeds were executed in the year 1982. The sale deeds also demonstrate that possession was handed over to the plaintiff and based on the sale deeds, mutation had also taken place in the name of the plaintiff. There is no material placed on record by the defendants on what date the plaintiff was dispossessed. Merely saying that they are in possession for 20 years will not establish the plea of adverse possession. Learned counsel for the appellants is unable to show how the finding recorded by the courts below with regard to the plea taken by the defendants regarding adverse possession is perverse. Accordingly, the substantial question of law No. 3 is decided against the appellant. 16. In view of the above discussions, I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No cost. 17. Registry will send back records.