JUDGMENT A.K. GOSWAMI, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellants. None appears for the respondents. 2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 19.05.2004 passed by the learned District Judge, Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 5/2003 upholding the judgment and decree 28.7.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karimganj in Title Suit No. 32/1996. 3. One Benuram Das was a tenant under jote right in respect of 2nd schedule land under the then Zamindar of Khajanchi Estate late Rai Bahadur Nagendra Nath Choudhury. He died leaving behind three sons, namely, Keshabram Das, Hariram Das and Prakashram Das. Hariram Das and Prakashram Das died before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came to be passed leaving behind Keshabram Das as their sole heir and successor to their estate. Hariram died unmarried. The name of wife of Prakashram Das was Alhad Bala Das who renounced her worldly life and became a Baishnav and left the house of her husband. As a result, Keshabram Das had become the sole owner of tenancy right in respect of land in 1st and 2nd schedule and was in possession of the same. Keshabram Das had his parental house in one part of the land of Dag No. 1 and 2 of 2nd schedule. Keshabram Das died leaving behind five sons, namely, Sanat Kumar Das, Sachindra Mohan Das, Bongshi Mohan Das, Digendra Nath Das and Dwijendra Kumar Das and thus, all of them were possessing the 2nd schedule land. The plaintiff No. 1 is Digendra Nath Das and the plaintiff Nos. 3 to 6 are successors-in-interest of Sachindra Mohan Das. Plaintiff No.2 was wife of Sachindra. One Nikhil Ch. Das is defendant No. 1 and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are successors-in-interest of Bongshi Mohan Das, defendant No. 4 is Dwijendra Kumar Das, defendant Nos. 5 to 8 are successors-in-interest of Sanat Kumar Das. Sanat Kumar Das had one son, namely, Tapadar Das who died and his successors-in-interest are arrayed as defendant Nos. 9 to 11. About the other defendants, reference will be made later on. 4. One Prafulla Chandra Das, son of late Piyaricharan Das and Premobala Das claimed to have purchased 1/3rd share of land described in 1st schedule from Alhad Bala Das by a registered deed dated 10.2.53 (B.S.) corresponding to middle part of May 1946. 9 to 11. About the other defendants, reference will be made later on. 4. One Prafulla Chandra Das, son of late Piyaricharan Das and Premobala Das claimed to have purchased 1/3rd share of land described in 1st schedule from Alhad Bala Das by a registered deed dated 10.2.53 (B.S.) corresponding to middle part of May 1946. Though Alhad Bala Das could not have inherited any property of her husband, in order to avoid any dispute, all the five sons of Keshabram Das decided to purchase the said land and accordingly, a registered sale deed being No. 759 dated 8.4.1952 was executed by Prafulla Chandra Das. The mother of Prafulla Chandra Das, Premobala Das also joined the brothers in purchasing the said plot of land from her son as she did not have any other land. Premobala started residing in a portion of Dag No. 1 of the 2nd schedule. 5. A khatian being No. 218 was prepared in respect of 2nd schedule land in the name of all the co-sharers including defendant No. 1 and they are enjoying the property on mutual understanding without any partition. Further case set out by the plaintiff is that successors of Keshabram Das including the plaintiffs and defendants, above mentioned, are joint owners of 2/3rd share of the 2nd schedule land. While in respect of the remaining 1/3rd share, the five brothers along with Premobala Das were the owners, individually holding 1/6th share and Premobala Das was owner in respect of 1/18th share in each of the plots in 2nd schedule measuring total of a little more than 22 decimals. The share of five brothers individually is 17/90th share in all the dags of 2nd schedule and as such, share of the plaintiff is .75 2/5 decimal in the 2nd schedule land. The defendant No. 1, instigated by defendant Nos. 5 to 11, had claimed more share and hence, raised dispute relating to the share of the plaintiffs necessitating filing of the suit for preliminary decree declaring the share of the plaintiffs as aforesaid and also for passing a final decree for partition. 6. Defendant No. 1 is the son of Premobala Das. The defendant No. 1 and defendant Nos. 6 to 10 filed a common written statement. Another written statement was filed by the defendant No. 5. Defendant Nos. 12 and 13 are the State of Assam and Settlement Officer, Karimganj, respectively. 6. Defendant No. 1 is the son of Premobala Das. The defendant No. 1 and defendant Nos. 6 to 10 filed a common written statement. Another written statement was filed by the defendant No. 5. Defendant Nos. 12 and 13 are the State of Assam and Settlement Officer, Karimganj, respectively. The defendant Nos. 12 to 22 are pro forma defendants. Defendant Nos. 12 and 13 also filed written statement contending that the suit land covered by Dag No. 852 (old), 847 (old) and 845 (old) of Khatian No. 218 was recorded in the name of Sachindra Kumar Das, Digendra Mohan Das, Dwijendra Kumar Das, Sanat Kumar Das and Nikhil Chandra Das. After settlement operation, the said land was recorded as Dag Nos. 1117(new), 1154(new) and 1164(new) of Katcha Patta No. 343 and was recorded in the name of Sachindra Kumar Das , Digendra Das, Dwijendra Kumar Das, Nikhil Chandra Das, Sasadhar Das, Makhanlal Das, Kanailal Das and Niranjan Das. There are other defendants in the form of defendant Nos. 14 to 22. 7. In the plaint, there is no reference as to who are defendant Nos. 14 to 22 and how they are connected with the suit. 8. In the written statement filed by the defendant Nos. 1 and 6 to 10 it is highlighted that Benuram Das did not have a son by the name of Hariram Das. He had three sons, namely, Bishnuram Das, Keshabram Das and Prakashram Das. Defendant No. 1 is a grandson of Bishnuram Das being the son of Piyaricharan Das. Prakashram Das had no son. He had two daughters from the side of his first wife. Alhad Bala Das was the second wife of Prakashram Das who died before 1956 and the two daughters and the second wife of Prakashram Das, Alhad Bala Das did not inherit any property left behind by late Prakashram Das and thereby, the properties left behind by Prakashram Das devolved upon Bishnuram Das and Keshabram Das and thus, they inherited the entire property of Benuram Das in equal share i.e. 50% each. On the death of Bishnuram Das, his son Piyaricharan Das @ Piyariram Das inherited the property left behind by Bishnuram Das and he was enjoying 50% share of land by way of amicable partition and was paying land revenue for his share. On the death of Bishnuram Das, his son Piyaricharan Das @ Piyariram Das inherited the property left behind by Bishnuram Das and he was enjoying 50% share of land by way of amicable partition and was paying land revenue for his share. Revenue records after settlement survey operation also disclosed 50% share of land in the name of defendant No. 1 and remaining 50% share in the name of legal heirs and successors of Keshabram Das. The sale deed dated 8.4.1952 is a collusive and fraudulent deed and Alhad Bala Das did not have any right to sell any land and Premobala Das also never purchased any land from Prafulla Chandra Das as she is the legal heir and successor of Benuram Das. In the written statement, statements are also made with regard to making of permanent construction by the parties and also the nature of land in various dags. 9. In the written statement filed by defendant No. 5, similar stand, as taken by the defendant No. 1 and defendant Nos. 6 to 10, was taken. 10. On the basis of the pleadings, learned trial court framed the following issues : “1. Is there any cause of action for the suit? 2. Is the suit maintainable? 3. Is the suit barred by limitation? 4. Is the suit bad for defect of parties? 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the decree as prayed for? 6. To what relief or reliefs, the plaintiffs are entitled?” 11. During trial, plaintiff examined himself as PW 1 and defendants examined three witnesses. The parties exhibited certain documents. 12. The learned trial court, on the basis of evidence on record, held that Bishnuram Das was also son of late Benuram Das and the defendant No. 1 is entitled to 50% share of the suit property. In coming to the aforesaid finding that Bishnuram was a son of late Benuram Das, the learned trial court relied, amongst others, upon Ext. G, F, H and I. Finding is also recorded that Alhad Bala Das had no right, title and interest except life interest in the property. Consequently, the learned trial court held that Ext.H sale deed of 1946 is void and as a result, Ext. 2 dated 8.4.1952 sale deed is also void. G, F, H and I. Finding is also recorded that Alhad Bala Das had no right, title and interest except life interest in the property. Consequently, the learned trial court held that Ext.H sale deed of 1946 is void and as a result, Ext. 2 dated 8.4.1952 sale deed is also void. The learned trial court, while deciding issue No. 2, recorded the finding that defendant No. 1 is entitled to 50% and legal heirs of Keshabram Das are entitled to get 50% share of the suit land. The suit was held to be not maintainable on the ground that Benuram Das had other properties which were not included in the instant suit. Issue No. 4 was also decided against the plaintiffs in view of non-joinder of the brothers and sisters of defendant No. 1 as well as heirs of Bishnuram Das and Prakashram Das. Accordingly, suit was dismissed. 13. The learned lower appellate court had formulated two points for the purpose of disposal of the appeal, which are as follows: “1. Whether the suit in the appeal is not maintainable for defect of parties i.e. for not impleading the necessary parties as also for not including all the properties of Benuram Das, when the partition relating to the suit property originally held by Benuram Das has been sought for by the appellants vis-a-vis the respondents concerned being the legal heirs and successors of said Benuram Das. 2. Whether the learned court below had rightly dismissed the suit while determining the issue of cause of action in favour but the issue relating to the reliefs as sought for by the appellants being adjudicated against them.” 14. The learned lower appellate court on appreciation of the evidence on record found that Benuram Das had three daughters, namely, Anandibala, Binodinibala and Dwijobala and that they had died in the years 1978, 1980 and 1995, respectively, leaving behind their heirs and successors, who are not made parties. However, it was recorded that Nirmala Das, sister of defendant No. 1, had, subsequently, been brought in as defendant No. 14. It was also recorded that the legal heirs and successors of two deceased daughters of Prakashram Das, namely, Labanya and Mukhya were not impleaded. However, it was recorded that Nirmala Das, sister of defendant No. 1, had, subsequently, been brought in as defendant No. 14. It was also recorded that the legal heirs and successors of two deceased daughters of Prakashram Das, namely, Labanya and Mukhya were not impleaded. The learned lower appellate court, noting that the said property are joint property and the appellants had omitted to sue as regards other lands of Benuram Das, held that the suit was not maintainable. 15. Point No. 2 was also decided against the appellants. On independent appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned lower appellate court held that Bishnuram Das was son of Benuram Das. The learned lower appellate court had also observed that Ext. H, the sale deed dated 24.5.1946 executed by Alhad Bala Das, recited that the sale deed was executed by her as she intended to leave home for pilgrimage for the welfare of her deceased husband and in honour of the departed soul. The learned lower appellate court held that object of alienating the land by Alhad Bala Das was not permissible under the law as prevailing before the Hindu Succession Act came into force and accordingly, dismissed the appeal. 16. This appeal was admitted to be heard by an order dated 5.8.2004 on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the learned courts below erred in law in not passing a preliminary decree for partition although title of the plaintiffs to the extent of at least 50% of the suit land stands admitted by the defendant? 2. Whether Ext. H (Sale Deed) executed by Hindu widow (Alhadbala Das) prior to enactment of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 conferred any title to the vendee?” 17. As noticed above, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed on the ground, amongst others, that the suit was not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. No ground was taken in the Memorandum of Appeal with regard to the finding recorded by the courts below relating to non-joinder of necessary parties. No ground was also taken with regard to the finding recorded that Benuram Das had left behind properties apart from the properties included in the suit. 18. In view of the above, substantial questions of law as formulated do not really arise for consideration and consequently, the appeal is dismissed. No cost. 19. Registry will send back the records.