JUDGMENT : 1. In Regular Civil Suit No. 172 of 1994, the trial Court passed a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. The lower appellate Court has reversed the decision of the trial Court and the suit has been dismissed. Hence, the original plaintiff is before this Court. 2. The plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the suit property on the basis of Will dated 12.03.1993 said to have been executed by Smt. Shantabai in respect of the suit property which was registered on 05.05.1994 i.e. after the death of Shantabai on 18.01.1994. The trial Court records the finding that the plaintiff is found to be in possession of the suit property. The lower appellate Court has reversed this finding and it is held that the plaintiff has failed to establish possession over the suit property. The finding of the lower appellate Court is based upon the documents available on record and it is a possible view of the matter. The lower appellate Court also dismissed the suit on the ground that the legal heirs of Smt. Shantabai were not joined as parties to the suit and the title could not be established on the basis of Will dated 12.03.1993. 3. On 09.03.2005, this Court admitted the matter and passed an order framing substantial question of law as under; (i) Whether the heirs of deceased Shantabai were necessary parties to the suit? (ii) Whether the respondents could establish their title to the suit property in the absence of challenging the will dated 12.03.1993? 4. After hearing the learned counsels appearing for the parties, I find that the suit in question was not required to be dismissed for nonjoinder of necessary parties. The lower appellate Court has committed an error in taking such a view. The suit was simplicitor for grant of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff on the basis of Will dated 12.03.1993. The proof of Will was not the matter in issue. The substantial question of law at Sr.No.1 is, therefore, answered accordingly. 5. Shri Sohoni, the learned counsel for the appellant/original plaintiff inviting my attention to the Regular Darkhast No. 98 of 2004 filed by the respondents claiming possession of the suit property from the plaintiff on the basis of the decision delivered by the lower appellate Court. The substantial question of law at Sr.No.1 is, therefore, answered accordingly. 5. Shri Sohoni, the learned counsel for the appellant/original plaintiff inviting my attention to the Regular Darkhast No. 98 of 2004 filed by the respondents claiming possession of the suit property from the plaintiff on the basis of the decision delivered by the lower appellate Court. He submits that this itself indicates that the appellant/plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. 6. In view of the aforesaid position, the second appeal can be disposed of by an order as under; (I) The plaintiff shall be at liberty to file a suit for title on the basis of the alleged Will dated 12.03.1993 from Smt.Shantabai by joining all the heirs of Smt. Shantabai as party defendants in the suit. (II) None of the observations made by the Courts below either one way or the other shall be binding while deciding the suit for title. (III) The appellant/plaintiff shall be at liberty to file an application for grant of temporary injunction in such a suit to restrain the defendants from interfering with his possession over the suit property. (IV) The trial Court shall decide such a suit and the application in accordance with law. Second appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.