ORDER : This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 21.12.2011 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Giridih in Partition Suit no.56 of 2003 whereby the plaintiffs suit was dismissed. 2. Plaintiffs case in brief is that late Asha Rani Mitra (mother of plaintiffs) had acquired schedule ‘A’ land along with her ‘dewrani’ namely, Kiran Bala Mitra. That Asha Rani Mitra had instituted Partition Suit no.24 of 1978 against Rabindra Nath Mitra and Sadhana Mitra, both son and daughter of late Kiran Bala Mitra. The said suit was decreed on 13.12.1978 and a preliminary decree of partition to the extent of half share in schedule ‘A’ property was passed in favour of Asha Rani Mitra, whereafter, the final decree was prepared and Asha Rani Mitra was put in Khas possession over her share of land as described in schedule ‘B’ of the plaint. It is stated that Asha Rani Mitra died in the year 1998, leaving behind one son i.e., defendant no.1 and four married daughters and one unmarried daughter i.e., plaintiff nos. 1 to 5, as class-I heirs, who had jointly inherited the property on the death of their mother. That the plaintiffs claimed that they are entitled to 1/6th share each of their mother’s property. The defendants contested the suit and filed their written statement. It is pleaded that Asha Rani Mitra, the absolute owner of schedule ‘B’ property had bequeathed the entire property on 03.06.1995 to defendant no.2 and after the death of Asha Rani Mitra on 26.05.1998, the entire right, title and interest of Asha Rani Mitra has vested upon the defendant no.2. It was pleaded that plaintiff no.5 had earlier instituted a Partition Suit no. 16 of 1986, which was dismissed on 20.04.1991. On the basis of pleading of the parties, the trial court has framed as many as seven issues which are as under:- (i) Is the suit maintainable in its present form? (ii) Is there any cause of action for the suit? (iii) Is there defect of non-joinder of Smt. Bandana Mitra in whose favour the late Asha Rani Mitra has bequeathed the suit property within the full knowledge of some of the plaintiffs? (iv) Is the suit barred by limitation, acquiescence, estoppel, waiver and res-judicata? (v) Is there exists any unity of title and community of interest between the plaintiffs and the defendants? (iv) Is the suit barred by limitation, acquiescence, estoppel, waiver and res-judicata? (v) Is there exists any unity of title and community of interest between the plaintiffs and the defendants? (vi) Whether the plaintiffs have any right, title or interest in the suit property? (vii) To what relief or reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled? 3. The plaintiffs examined five witnesses and also produced documentary evidence, i.e. Ext. (1)-the original power of attorney dated 22.04.2002. The defendants also filed documentary evidence and examined four witnesses. The certified copy of written statement dated 11.06.2004 filed in Probate Case no.1 of 2004 by plaintiff nos. 1, 2 and 4 are marked as Exts. A to E, Ext. B is the certified copy of judgment dated 20.04.1991 passed in Partition Suit no.16 of 1986, Ext. B/1 is the certified copy of judgment in Probate Case no. 1 of 2004 passed by Additional District Judge-I, Giridih, Ext. C is the certified copy of decree of Partition Suit no. 16 of 1986, Ext. C/1 is the certified copy of decree in Probate Case no. 1 of 2004, Ext. D is the original Will dated 03.06.1995, Ext. D/1 is carbon copy of Will dated 03.06.1995, Ext. E is the signature of Tripti Deb and Sipra Ghosh in entry of Notary register dated 20.01.2007. 4. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence, the trial court has held that the suit was hit by principles of res judicata as the matter was substantially decided in Partition Suit no. 16 of 1986. It also held that the ‘Will’ has been probated, hence, the plaintiffs cannot claim partition since the suit property belongs to defendant no.2 in terms of the ‘Will’. In course of the hearing the appellants have stated that interlocutory application bearing I.A. no. 3336 of 2014 has been filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wherein the copy of judgment of the High Court in Misc. Appeal no. 230 of 2010 setting aside the Probate granted in favour of defendant no.2 in Probate Case no.1 of 2004, (Title Suit no.7 of 2004) is annexed. It is argued that the respondent had preferred L.P.A no. 209 of 2014 against the judgment in Misc. Appeal no. 230 of 2010 which was dismissed and judgment in Misc. Appeal no. 230 of 2010 was affirmed. It is argued that the respondent had preferred L.P.A no. 209 of 2014 against the judgment in Misc. Appeal no. 230 of 2010 which was dismissed and judgment in Misc. Appeal no. 230 of 2010 was affirmed. Thereafter, respondents had preferred Special Leave to appeal being CC No.(S) 8274 of 2015 before the Supreme Court which was also dismissed. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that subsequent events and judgments have a bearing on the findings of the court below because the suit was dismissed on the ground that the Probate was granted in favour of defendant no.2. Learned counsel has argued that the trial court has erred in law by holding that the suit was hit by the principles of res judicata without appreciating the fact that the earlier Partition Suit no. 16 of 1986 was instituted by plaintiff no.5. The trial court had held that the suit property was the stridhan property of the deceased mother of the plaintiff no.5, hence, the plaintiffs had no right to claim partition of the suit property. It is submitted that the present suit was instituted after the demise of the mother stating that the plaintiffs, being the daughters, are class-I legal heirs and they have a right, title and interest and 1/6th share in the suit property belonging to their deceased mother. That the issues in the present suit were not directly or substantially involved in the earlier suit, therefore, the finding of the trial court that the present suit was hit by principles of res judicata is an error in law. 5. Mr. Murtty, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of the trial court. The appeal is fit to be dismissed as the earlier partition suit filed by the appellant was dismissed and the subsequent suit for partition is hit by the principles of res judicata. 6. Before coming on to the dominant questions involved in this appeal as to whether the case is governed by testamentary succession or interstate succession. It is pertinent to state that the trial court was correct in holding that if there is a ‘Will’ in respect of the property and the ‘Will’ has been duly probated, then there is no question of interstate succession and the suit is therefore not maintainable. It is pertinent to state that the trial court was correct in holding that if there is a ‘Will’ in respect of the property and the ‘Will’ has been duly probated, then there is no question of interstate succession and the suit is therefore not maintainable. However, during the pendency of the appeal the order of Probate has been set aside by the High Court, which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, which is evident from the annexures of interlocutory application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC with a prayer to admit the documents in the present appeal. The orders besides being public documents are not controverted by the respondents and they are necessary documents for just decision of the case and as such they are admissible. These documents are subsequent developments in this case and the documents take back the case to be a case of interstate succession. It is pertinent to take notice of the fact that the judgment of the High Court in Misc. Appeal no. 230 of 2010 setting aside the judgment granting probate in favour of the respondent has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal. Hence, the finding of the trial court that the suit property had devolved on the defendant no.2 in terms of the ‘Will’ loses significance and is fit to be set aside. It is manifest that on issue no.4, the learned court below has committed an error in law by holding that the suit instituted by the plaintiffs was hit by principles of res judicata because it failed to appreciate that the earlier suit was filed for partition during the lifetime of the mother, who was the exclusive owner of the said property and the court had held that the suit for partition is not maintainable in view of the fact that if the property was stridhan property of the mother. The court below committed error by not appreciating the fact that after the demise of the mother, the plaintiffs as daughters were the surviving class-I legal heirs along with defendant no.1. They had the right to seek partition of the suit property for 1/6th of their shares, hence, the issue involved was not directly or substantially involved in the earlier suit, hence, the finding of the court below is not tenable in law and is hereby set aside. They had the right to seek partition of the suit property for 1/6th of their shares, hence, the issue involved was not directly or substantially involved in the earlier suit, hence, the finding of the court below is not tenable in law and is hereby set aside. In view of the discussions made above it is held that the plaintiffs and defendants are entitled to 1/6th share in schedule ‘B’ property i.e. the stridhan of their late mother. 7. Therefore, the judgment dated 21.12.2011, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Giridih in Partition Suit no.56 of 2003 is hereby, set aside and the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of partition and a preliminary decree declaring that the plaintiffs’ each and the defendants are entitled to 1/6th share in the suit property as detailed in schedule of the plaint. Proceedings of Final Decree shall follow in the trial court. 8. Office is directed to prepare a fresh decree accordingly. 9. In the result, the appeal stands allowed.