JUDGMENT : KALYAN RAI SURANA, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.D. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the appellants, as well as Mr. B.D. Das, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. H.K. Sarma, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC for short), is preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 17.05.2012, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Goalpara in Title Suit No. 5/2009. 3. Be it mentioned that during the pendency of this appeal, the appellant No. 1 namely, Jaibendu Jyoti Patgiri had died and a such, his wife who was already impleaded as Appellant No. 2 and his daughter's name were impleaed as substituted appellants. Nonetheless, for the sake of clarity, it is mentioned that any reference to appellant No. 1 in this order would mean Jaibendu Jyoti Patgiri, the appellant No. 1. 4. The respondents are the plaintiffs in TS No. 5/2009, which was filed for eviction, mesne profits and compensation. Bereft of unnecessary particulars, the case of the respondents in the plaint in brief is that the land measuring 1 bigha - 0 katha - 5 lecha described in Schedule-A of the plaint was initially owned and possessed by Jitendra Narayan Choudhury, who was the predecessor of the respondents. On his death, the said land was inherited by his nine legal heirs, i.e. wife, 4 sons and 4 daughters, including the respondents. It was claimed that the wife of the landowner, namely, Usha Rani Choudhury, i.e. the mother of the respondents had constructed all structures standing on the said land and that she had also died on 25.01.1998 and the remaining 8 legal heirs inherited 1/8th share in the said land, measuring 131/8 lechas (131/8L). It was portrayed by the respondents that Khanindra Nath Choudhury, one of their brothers had brought his paternal aunt to live with him as his wife. So, the mother of the respondents had shifted to an old house with her unmarried daughter. It was portrayed by the respondents that Khanindra Nath Choudhury, one of their brothers had brought his paternal aunt to live with him as his wife. So, the mother of the respondents had shifted to an old house with her unmarried daughter. Ultimately, Khanindra Nath Choudhury purchased 2 katha - 5 lecha land (katha and lecha is hereinafter referred to as ‘K’ and ‘L’ for short) vide Sale Deed bearing Registered Deed No. 2004 dated 07.10.1986 and had constructed his own dwelling house, but he could not shift to the said house as he became ill and died issueless on 17.08.2001 in the house standing on the suit land. On his death, Gitika Choudhury inherited her husband’s estate, including 2K-5L and 131/8L land. However, the suit land described in Schedule-B of the plaint measuring 1K-10L was gifted by their brother, Khanindra Nath Choudhury, to his wife, Gitika Choudhury by executing a will on 18.05.2001 and registering the same on 21.05.2001. During the lifetime of Khanindra Nath Choudhury, he and his wife Gitika had kept the appellant No. 1 to serve and help them in their domestic works. He was provided education and allowed him to marry appellant No. 2 and to live in the suit premises, to which the respondents had consented. Upon the death of Khanindra Nath Choudhury, the respondent No. 1 had instituted a probate proceeding, which was converted to suit and numbered as T.S. (P) No. 12/2006. During the pendency of the suit, Gitika Choudhury had died on 03.04.2009, as such, the suit was dismissed on withdrawal. On 06.04.2009, the respondents asked the appellants to vacate the suit premises by keeping intact all the furniture and articles of Khanindra Nath Choudhury and his wife Gitika Choudhury, but they did not vacate and denied the title of the respondents. Hence, after serving Advocate’s notice dated 21.04.2009 on 25.04.2009, the suit was filed. It was stated that Abhijit Deka, son of their late sister, Arati Choudhury was not interested in the matter and, as such, the suit was also filed on his behalf. It was stated that the cause of action for the suit arose on 06.04.2009 and 25.04.2009 and the suit was filed. 5. The appellants contested the suit by filing their joint written statement. It was stated that the cause of action for the suit arose on 06.04.2009 and 25.04.2009 and the suit was filed. 5. The appellants contested the suit by filing their joint written statement. Bereft of unnecessary particulars, it was stated that the suit was not maintainable in view of previously instituted T.S. No. 7/2004 against the appellant No. 1 and others on same cause of action i.e. for eviction from the present suit premises and that the suit was also bad for was bad for non-joinder of legal heirs of Late Arati Choudhury. It was denied that the houses were constructed on suit land by Usha Rani Choudhury or that she lived therein and it was stated that she had been residing in the old house constructed by her husband. It was stated that Khanindra Nath Choudhury had constructed the house on Schedule-B land and then married Gitika Choudhury. It was stated that Gitika Choudhury was his paternal aunt and since his very childhood days, he was living with Gitika Choudhury (then Patgiri) and on her marriage, he had also come to the house in Schedule-B land since 1983 and was living there without any break and to the knowledge of the respondents and that the respondents had no right to ask them to vacate the suit premises. It was stated that Gitika Choudhury had given/alienated the suit premises and all her movable and immovable properties to the appellant No. 1 by her will dated 07.03.2009 and, as such, the appellant claimed to be in possession of the suit premises by virtue of the said will. It was stated that the respondents had specifically stated that in the plaint, that suit land measuring 1B-0K-5L owned and possessed by Jitendra Narayan Choudhury was increased to 1B-2K-0L by inclusion of land measuring 35L (1K-15L), to which the respondents had no clue. It was also stated that in TS No. 7/2004, the respondents had denied Gitika Choudhury as wife of Khanindra Nath Choudhury, but in this suit, the respondents had adopted double standard by admitting Gitika Choudhury as wife of Khanindra Nath Chudhury. It was denied that the appellants were trespassers and, as such, claiming that the cause of action was falsely manufactured, but it arose on 29.04.2003 and 10.10.2003, for which TS No. 7/2004 was filed and the appellants prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. It was denied that the appellants were trespassers and, as such, claiming that the cause of action was falsely manufactured, but it arose on 29.04.2003 and 10.10.2003, for which TS No. 7/2004 was filed and the appellants prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. On the basis of pleadings, the learned trial court framed 11 issues, which are as follows:- (i) Is there any cause of action for this suit? (ii) Whether the cause of action of the present suit and that of the TS No. 7 of 2004 is same? (iii) Whether the present suit is not maintainable as the earlier suit T.S. No. 7/04 was abandoned without obtaining the permission to file a fresh suit? (iv) Is the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties? (v) Whether the suit land Schedule-B land of the plaint is situated outside the land of schedule A of the plaint? (vi) Whether Usha Rani Choudhury constructed houses and other structures on the schedule-B land of the plaint and permitted her son Khanindra Nath Choudhury to occupy the same along with Githika Choudhury? (vii) Whether Khanindra Nath Choudhury was the absolute owner of the suit land after his deth, Githika Choudhury inherited the same? (viii) Whether Githika Choudhury bequeathed the suit premises validly to defendant No. 1 by execution of a will dated 07.03.2009? (ix) Whether the plaintiffs have right, title and interest over the suit land of the plaint? (x) Whether the plaintiff entitled to get a decree as prayed for? (xi) To what other reliefs, the parties are entitled? 7. In order to prove their case, the respondents examined three witnesses, viz. Atindra Kumar Choudhury (PW-1), Arup Kumar Choudhury (PW-2) and Jagadish Chandra Roy (PW-3) and exhibited the following documents, viz. (x) Whether the plaintiff entitled to get a decree as prayed for? (xi) To what other reliefs, the parties are entitled? 7. In order to prove their case, the respondents examined three witnesses, viz. Atindra Kumar Choudhury (PW-1), Arup Kumar Choudhury (PW-2) and Jagadish Chandra Roy (PW-3) and exhibited the following documents, viz. Jamabandi for Village-Nayapara (Ext.1), Revenue receipt of suit patta (Ext.2), Municipality taxpaying receipt of suit land (Ext.3), Holding number of suit land (Ext.4), Certified copy of suit patta (Ext.5), Certified copy of the sale deed (Ext.6), Certified copy of deed of gift (Ext.7), Certified copy of deed of gift (Ext.8), Certified copy of deed of will (Ext.9), Certified copy of withdrawal petition (Ext.10), Certified copy of order passed by learned District Judge (Ext.11), Postal receipt of pleader notice (Ext.12), A/D card of pleader’s notice (Ext.13), Copy of pleader notice (Ext.14), Certified copy of chitha of village-Nayapara (Ext.15), Certified copy of Chitha showing name of defendant No. 1 (Ext.16), Certified copy of jamabandi (Ext.17) and Draft chitha of village-Nayapara (Ext.18). In defence, the appellants examined four witnesses, viz. appellant No. 1 (DW-1), Kalyan Kumar Bhattacharjee (DW-2), Nanda Lal Das (DW-3), Swapan Kumar Das (DW-4) and exhibited the following documents, viz. Draft Jamabandi of land measuring 1B-2K-0L (Ext.A), Draft Chitha (Ext.B), Copy Will executed by Gitika Choudhury in favour of appellant No. 1 and Will (Ext.C). 8. In respect of issue No. 1, upon discussing the materials on record, the learned trial court has held that there was a cause of action for the suit and the issue was decided in the affirmative and in favour of the plaintiffs. In respect of issue No. 4, the learned trial court was of the view that the defendants had raised the issue of non-joinder of legal heirs of Late Arati Devi, the daughter of Jitendra Choudhury, but a party can be said to be necessary when his or her interest is vested on the property and that though the appellants had raised the said issue, it was their duty to explain how legal heirs of Late Arati Devi had any interest over the suit land. The learned trial court observed that the date of death of Late Arati Devi was not mentioned and it was held that her legal heirs were not Class-I heirs of Late Usha Rani Choudhury, as such, they were not necessary parties to the suit. The learned trial court observed that the date of death of Late Arati Devi was not mentioned and it was held that her legal heirs were not Class-I heirs of Late Usha Rani Choudhury, as such, they were not necessary parties to the suit. Accordingly, the issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff. The issues No. 2 and 3 were taken up together. On appreciating the evidence, the learned trial court observed that by Ext.9, i.e. the certified copy registered Will bearing No. 529 of 2001, Khanindra Choudhury had bequeathed land measuring 1K-10L out of land measuring 1B-2K-0L of Dag No. 251, Patta No. 347 to his wife Gitika Choudhury, which was more than 131/8L land and that the boundary of the bequeathed land was not mentioned in the will. It was also observed that by the time the respondents herein had filed the suit, Gitika Choudhury had expired without obtaining probate in respect of the said will. It was also held that Gitika Choudhury had inherited property from her husband Late Khanindra Choudhury and while some property of Khanindra Choudhury was self acquired, some property was inherited as ancestral property, and as Gitika Choudhury had died issueless, her property would devolve as per Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act. Thus, it was held that after the death of Gitika Choudhury, there arose new facts and circumstances and new cause of action, as such, it was held that the cause of action of the present suit was not the same was TS No. 7/2004 and moreover, it was held that as the petitioner had raised the said issue, burden of proof would lie of them. It was also observed that the petitioner had not produced a certified copy of the plaint to show that the cause of action of both suits were same and one. The previous suit having been filed for declaration that the will was not genuine, the learned trial court held that the cause of action and subject matter of both suits were not alike. Hence, issue No. 2 and 3 were decided in favour of the respondent. 9. Issue No. 5 was discussed thereafter. Referring to the Sale Deed No. 2004 dated 07.10.1986 (Ext.6), by which Khanindra Choudhury had purchased 2K-1L land, it was held that there was no dispute as regards Ext.6, and that Ext.6 shows Schedule-A land as boundary land. Hence, issue No. 2 and 3 were decided in favour of the respondent. 9. Issue No. 5 was discussed thereafter. Referring to the Sale Deed No. 2004 dated 07.10.1986 (Ext.6), by which Khanindra Choudhury had purchased 2K-1L land, it was held that there was no dispute as regards Ext.6, and that Ext.6 shows Schedule-A land as boundary land. The learned trial court had observed that although the appellant had cross examined the respondents over increase of land measuring 35L, but the trend of cross examination did not show by which direction had the land been increased and it was further observed that the boundary of the enhanced land was not given in written statement or in their evidence. By referring to the evidence on record, it was held that the Suit land i.e. Schedule-B land fell within the boundary of Schedule-A land measuring 1B-0K-5L and that there was no dispute regarding Schedule-A land. In respect of issue No. 6, it was held that the witnesses of the appellant had not stated when Khanindra Choudhury constructed the houses. It was observed that the appellant No. 1 (then alive) had come to the house when Khanindra Choudhury had married Gitika Choudhury, so he had no answer when Khanindra Choudhury had constructed houses on the suit land. It was held that Khanindra Choudhury had lived with his mother, as such, it was not believable that he had constructed houses on the suit land and the said plea was not proved. Hence, the issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff. 10. In respect of issue No. 7, it was held that after the death of Jitendra Choudhury and Usha Rani Choudhury, the land was not partitioned, as such, Khanindra Choudhury was not the absolute owner of the suit land, which was found to excess of his part of the share and that the share of the respondents was also included in the suit land. Accordingly, the issue was decided in favour of the respondents. In respect of Issue No. 8, it was held that Will dated 07.03.2009 was a sleeping document until probate or letter of administration was obtained and moreover, the suit property and houses standing thereon was a part of Schedule-A land, which was not partitioned and, as such, will executed on joint property was not valid, and the issue was decided accordingly. As against Issues No. 10 and 11, in view of the decision on issues No. 5 to 9, it was held that the plaintiffs was entitled to a decree for following reliefs:- (a) the respondents had jointly inherited 131/8L land out of 1B-0K-5L land mentioned in Schedule-A land which included Schedule-B land. (b) Respondents had acquired right and title to the suit houses measuring 44' x 14' kitchen measuring 20' x 10' two bathrooms, two latrines mentioned in the Schedule-B land. (c) Respondents were entitled for khas possession of the suit land mentioned in relief (b) of the order after evicting the appellants, their men, women, children, agents from the suit house. (d) No cost was awarded. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant has pressed all the grounds for appeal as taken in the Memo of appeal. It is submitted that the non-joinder of the legal representatives of Late Arati Choudhury in the suit. It is submitted that the suit land belonged to Late Jitendra Narayan Choudhury and after his death, all properties had devolved on Late Usha Rani Choudhury and upon her death on all her sons and daughters, including Arati Choudhury, who was one of the daughters. Thus, upon the death of the legal representatives of Arati Choudhury, her sons and daughters were very much a necessary and proper party to the suit. 12. It is submitted that since his childhood, i.e. when he came to the household of Khanindra Choudhury and his wife Gitika Choudhury after their marriage, the appellant No. 1 had been residing in the suit premises and with his marriage with the appellant No. 2, she has also been residing in the suit premises. Although they were living with permission from the said Khanindra Choudhury and Gitika Choudhury, they were occupying the suit premises in a hostile manner and adverse to the interest of the respondents. Hence, it is submitted that the learned trial had erred in law and on facts in decreeing the suit. 13. It is submitted that the respondent’s witnesses had admitted that the suit land in both the suits i.e. TS No. 7/2004 and TS No. 5/2009 were same, as such, the subsequent suit was barred by the principles of res-judicata. Hence, it is submitted that the learned trial had erred in law and on facts in decreeing the suit. 13. It is submitted that the respondent’s witnesses had admitted that the suit land in both the suits i.e. TS No. 7/2004 and TS No. 5/2009 were same, as such, the subsequent suit was barred by the principles of res-judicata. It is also submitted that it was the pleaded case of the respondents that there was an excess of 35L land in the particular Dag covering their land and, as such, it was incumbent on part of the learned trial court to decide on the said point before arriving at a finding that the suit land was within Schedule-A land. Hence, it is submitted that as the suit land could not be identifiable, the matter was required to be remanded back for a fresh adjudication so that the truth as to whether the suit land formed a part of the Schedule-A land could be determined. 14. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has submitted that in paragraph 3 to 5 of their plaint, the respondents had made specific averment to the effect that the suit land described in Schedule-A of the plaint was originally owned by Late Jitendra Narayan Choudhury and that upon his death, he had left behind his wife (since deceased), four sons including Late Khanindra Nath Choudhury (since deceased) and four daughters including Late Arati Choudhury (since deceased). It had been also specifically stated that after the death of Late Jitendra Narayan Choudhury, the properties which he had left behind was inherited by the said legal heirs and that they had become joint owners and possessors of the Schedule-A land, each entitled to 1/8th share equivalent to land measuring 131/8L and that the said statements were duly admitted by the appellant in paragraph 4 of their written statement. Hence, it was specifically admitted that the suit land was owned by the father of Khanindra Choudhury and from him it had devolved on Late Khanindra Choudhury and upon his death to Gitika Choudhury, as such, upon her death, by operation of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the said land would devolve on the legal heirs/representatives of her deceased husband. Therefore, the decree passed in this case cannot be questioned. 15. Therefore, the decree passed in this case cannot be questioned. 15. It is submitted that it was the pleaded case of the respondents in their plaint that the legal heirs of Smt. Arati Choudhury was not interested in pursuing the suit. Hence, it was not open for the appellant to question the same, as the legal heirs of Smt. Arati Choudhury could have maintained an independent claim, which they did not. Moreover, it is not the case of suppression of material fact because the said matter was duly disclosed in the plaint and it was claimed that the claim was also made on their behalf. Hence, the suit cannot be held to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as their estate was sufficiently represented. 16. It is also submitted that although the appellant had taken a defence that the present suit was barred by res-judicta, but no effort was made to prove the contents of the plaint of the previously instituted TS No. 7/2004 and moreover, the subject matter of the two suits were totally different because the suit was not solely for eviction, but prayer was made to declare the will in favour of Smt. Gitika Choudhury as fraudulent and not genuine. 17. In support of the argument, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent had relied on the following case citations - N.K. Mohd. Sulaiman Sahib vs. N.C. Mohd. Ismail Saheb and Others, AIR 1966 SC 791 (Constitution Bench), Rasheshyam Jalan vs. Mr. Triplex and Others, (2017) 6 GLJ 102 : (2018) 1 GLR 38, Maqsood Ali vs. Zahid Ali Sabzposh, AIR 1954 All 385 (downloaded from http://indiankanoon.org). 18. From the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel/Senior Counsel for both sides and on perusal of the materials on record, the following points of determination arise for consideration by the Court in this case:- (i) Whether the learned trial court was right in not dismissing the suit for non-joinder of legal heirs of Late Arati Choudhury? (ii) Whether the decree passed in the suit of the respondents suffered from any legal or factual infirmity which vitiated such decree? 19. In paragraph 4 of the written statement, the appellant has specifically admitted the statements made in paragraph 3, 4 and 5 of the plaint. (ii) Whether the decree passed in the suit of the respondents suffered from any legal or factual infirmity which vitiated such decree? 19. In paragraph 4 of the written statement, the appellant has specifically admitted the statements made in paragraph 3, 4 and 5 of the plaint. As stated herein before, in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the plaint, the respondents had made a categorical statement that the suit land belonged to Late Jitendra Narayan Choudhury, who left behind 9 legal heirs and representatives, including the respondents and Khanindra Nath Choudhury (since deceased). It is not in dispute that Khanindra Nath Choudhury entitled to 1/8th share of land described in Schedule-A, which would be equivalent to land measuring 131/8L, which is morefully described in Schedule-B of the plaint. It is not in dispute that by a purported will, Late Khanindra Choudhury had bequeathed the said land including his separately purchased land to his wife entitled to Gitika Choudhury. Gitika Choudhury, during her lifetime is stated to have bequeathed her immovable property to Jaibendu Jyoti Patgiri (since deceased) by will dated 07.03.2009. Gitika Choudhury had died on 03.04.2009. However, before Gitika Choudhury could probate the said property, she had expired and, as such, as the effect of the will had lapsed by her death, T. (Probate) Suit No. 12/2006, filed by the respondent No. 1 was dismissed on withdrawal. Under such circumstances, the said land described in Schedule-B could not be transferred to Gitika Choudhury while she was alive and as a fall-out, the said land described in Schedule-B of the plaint could not be transferred to the appellant No. 1 while he was alive. Therefore, at the time of her death, Late Gitika Choudhury had only inherited the estate of her husband, including land described in Schedule-B of the plaint. Thus, it would be now expedient to first examine the provisions of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which is extracted below:- “15. General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus.— (1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16: (a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any predeceased son or daughter) and the husband. (b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband. (c) thirdly, upon the mother and father. (d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father. (b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband. (c) thirdly, upon the mother and father. (d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father. (e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) — (a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father. (b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband.” 20. Thus, from the above, it is seen that the property of a Hindu female dying intestate shall, in the absence of others, on the heirs of the husband. Hence, in view of the categorical admission made in paragraph 4 of the written statement, the land described in Schedule-B, by which the statements made in paragraph 3, 4 and 5 of the plaint was admitted, the suit land described in Schedule-B, being a part of the land described in Schedule-A would revert back to the legal heirs of the husband by operation of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 21. Now it would be relevant to re-examine the various issues decided by the learned trial court. Issue No. 1 as decided by the learned trial court is taken up first. In this suit, the respondents had projected that they were entitled to the land described in Schedule-B and, as such, prayed for their rights and for ejection of the appellant from the suit land and recovery of possession of Schedule-B land. The statements made in the plaint were denied. Hence, there was definitely a cause of action for the suit, being a bundle of facts asserted by one party and denied by the other. Hence, the said issue No. 1 is held to have been correctly decided by the learned trial court. 22. Issue No. 2 as decided by the learned trial court is taken up now. Hence, there was definitely a cause of action for the suit, being a bundle of facts asserted by one party and denied by the other. Hence, the said issue No. 1 is held to have been correctly decided by the learned trial court. 22. Issue No. 2 as decided by the learned trial court is taken up now. It is not in dispute that although the appellant had taken up the plea that the respondents had previously instituted TS No. 7/2004 on the same cause of action against the appellant No. 1, but the copy of plaint of the said previous suit was not exhibited. Only three documents were exhibited by the appellants, viz. certified copy of jamabandi of 1B-2K land (Ext.A), Certified copy of Draft Chitha of same land (Ext.B) and Will of Late Gitika Choudhury (Ext.C – under objection). However, in respect of this issue, the learned trial court has discussed about the previous suit on the basis of statements made in written argument filed by the parties. In this connection, it must be mentioned that written notes of argument cannot take place of evidence on record. It is too well settled that the court is, inter-alia, required to appreciate the pleadings, admissions made by the parties and those portion of evidence of the respective parties, which is supported by pleadings. Therefore, the trial courts cannot rely on oral or written arguments, which are dehors the pleadings and evidence on record. In the present case in hand, the plaint of the previous suit having not been exhibited by the appellant’s witnesses, the learned trial court ought not to have discussed the issue on the basis of written notes of arguments, rather, the learned trial court ought to have held that there was no evidence on record to prove that the respondents had previously instituted TS No. 7/2004 on the same cause of action against the appellant No. 1. Nonetheless, as the issue was decided in the negative, save and except for the recourse taken by the learned trial court, the decision of the learned trial court is not found to be vitiated. 23. Issue No. 3 is taken up now. This issue is similar to issue No. 2 discussed above and the said issue No. 3 has been decided in favour of the plaintiff. 23. Issue No. 3 is taken up now. This issue is similar to issue No. 2 discussed above and the said issue No. 3 has been decided in favour of the plaintiff. In view of the discussions made on issue No. 2, for the same reasons, without replicating the same discussions again, it is held that the learned trial court has correctly decided the said issue No. 3 because in the absence of the plaint of TS No. 7/2004 and order-sheet of the said previous suit being exhibited, there was no material before the learned trial court to hold that that the present suit was not maintainable. 24. Issue No. 4 is taken up now. The case of the respondent-plaintiff in the plaint is that Abhijit Deka, the son of their late sister, namely, Arati Choudhury was not interested in the matter and, as such, the suit was also filed on his behalf. The appellant had taken the plea of non-joinder of legal heirs of Arati Choudhury as necessary parties. However, the appellants did not examine any of the legal heirs of Late Arati Choudhury to prove the point. Moreover, it is well settled that no decree is binding on any person who has not been joined in the suit. Therefore, if the legal heirs have any claim in respect of any part of the suit land, their right did not get extinguished. Moreover, it is not proved why the legal heirs of Late Arati Choudhury was either a proper party or a necessary party in the suit in whose absence the suit could not proceed. Hence, it was not open for the appellant to maintain the plea of non-joinder of necessary parties. Therefore, the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the matter and held that a party can be said to be necessary when his or her interest is vested on the property, as such, they were not necessary parties to the suit. Accordingly, the issue No. 4, as decided by the learned trial court is upheld. 25. Issue No. 5 is taken up now. From the evidence on record, is appears that by registered Will bearing No. 529 of 2001 (Ext.9), Khanindra Choudhury had bequeathed land measuring 1K-10L out of land measuring 1B-2K-0L of Dag No. 251, Patta No. 347 to his wife Gitika Choudhury. The said land is more than 131/8L land falling in his share. Issue No. 5 is taken up now. From the evidence on record, is appears that by registered Will bearing No. 529 of 2001 (Ext.9), Khanindra Choudhury had bequeathed land measuring 1K-10L out of land measuring 1B-2K-0L of Dag No. 251, Patta No. 347 to his wife Gitika Choudhury. The said land is more than 131/8L land falling in his share. On a perusal of the said will (Ext.9), it is seen that the boundary of the bequeathed land had not been mentioned therein. In the plaint, it has been specifically described in Schedule-B appended to the plaint that said land forms part of Schedule-A land. The Schedule-B land is shown with specific boundaries. In paragraph 2 of the plaint, the respondents had stated “That the suit premises is the western part of 1B-0K-5L land described in Schedule-A of the plaint.” In this connection, while the appellants in paragraph 3 of their written statement did not deny the correctness of the statement made by the respondents, it was stated “That in reply to the statements of para No. 2 of the plaint, the defendants beg to state that the suit premises is situated by the side of western boundary of the Schedule-A land of the plaint.” However, neither in the written statement, nor in their evidence, the appellant had disclosed in which Dag, Patta or Revenue Village, the suit premises was situated. The appellant had not provided the specific four boundaries of the suit land to counter the description of land described in Schedule-B of the plaint. The learned trial court appears to have rightly appreciated the contents of the sale deed (Ext.6), by which Khanindra Choudhury had purchased 2K-1L land, which contains that land of Late Jitendra Narayan Choudhury (i.e. Schedule-A land) was situated in the northern boundary. There is no evidence by the appellant that in which direction the 35L land in dag covered Ext.A and Ext.B had increased. Thus, the appellant could not disprove that the suit land i.e. Schedule-B land did not fall within the boundary of Schedule-A land measuring 1B-0K-5L. Hence, the issue No. 5 is found to have been rightly decided by the learned trial court. 26. Issue No. 6 is taken up now. The undeniable fact is that the appellant No. 1 came to the household of Late Khanindra Choudhury, when he married Gitika Choudhury and moreover, he was admittedly a minor then. Hence, the issue No. 5 is found to have been rightly decided by the learned trial court. 26. Issue No. 6 is taken up now. The undeniable fact is that the appellant No. 1 came to the household of Late Khanindra Choudhury, when he married Gitika Choudhury and moreover, he was admittedly a minor then. Therefore, he could not have personal knowledge that who had built the houses which had been constructed on the suit land described in Schedule-B. In paragraph 7 of the written statement, it has been mentioned that after marriage of Gitika Choudhury, the aunt of the appellant No. 1, he had also come to the house at Schedule-B and he had been living there since 1983, as such, it is an admitted fact that when the appellant No. 1 moved in Schedule-B land, the house was standing thereon. Thus, in the absence of any evidence to show that Khanindra Choudhury had constructed the house standing on Schedule-B land, the learned trial court had committed no error in deciding the issue No. 6 in favour of the respondents. 27. Issue No. 7 as decided by the learned trial court is taken up now. The copy of jamabandi (Ext.5) and (Ext.A) as well as copy of draft chitha (Ext.B) are testimony of the fact that after the death of Jitendra Choudhury, the land described in Schedule-A was not partitioned. Hence, by no stretch of imagination, Khanindra Choudhury can be said to be the absolute owner of the suit land described in Schedule-B of the plaint. It is not disproved that on death of Jitendra Narayan Choudhury and Usha Choudhury, their 4 sons and 4 daughters would inherit 1/8th share of 1B-0K-5L land described in Schedule-A, which would come to 131/8L each. Thus, the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record to arrive at a finding that land measuring 1K-10L stated to have been bequeathed to Gitika Choudhury by will dated 18.05.2001, registered on 21.05.2001 (Ext.9) was excess than his share. Hence, Gitika Choudhury could not have inherited the purported share of her husband unless, the land was partitioned amongst the legal heirs of Late Jitendra Narayan Choudhury. Thus, issue No. 7 is found to have been rightly decided in favour of the respondents. 28. Issue No. 8 is taken up now. Hence, Gitika Choudhury could not have inherited the purported share of her husband unless, the land was partitioned amongst the legal heirs of Late Jitendra Narayan Choudhury. Thus, issue No. 7 is found to have been rightly decided in favour of the respondents. 28. Issue No. 8 is taken up now. It is not disputed that the appellant No. 1 did not obtain any probate and/or Letter of Administration in respect of Will dated 07.03.2009. Moreover, the suit property described in Schedule-B and houses standing thereon were a part of Schedule-A land. In respect of issue No. 7, this Court has arrived at a finding that Schedule-A land had not been partitioned amongst the legal heirs of Late Jitendra Narayan Choudhury. Thus, the learned trial court had rightly appreciated that will executed on joint property was not valid. Thus, no infirmity is found in the decision of the learned trial court on issue No. 8. 29. Issue No. 9 is taken up now. It is the admitted case of the appellant in the plaint that he came to live in the suit premises after his aunt Gitika Choudhury had married Khanindra Choudhury. Thus, he was a permissive occupier, and remained so till 03.04.2009, the date of death of Gitika Choudhury. The copy of jamabandi (Ext.5) and (Ext.A) as well as copy of draft chitha (Ext.B) proves that the land still remained in the joint names of all sons and daughters of Late Jitendra Narayan Choudhury. The appellants, have not been able to prove that in the absence of any partition, the possession of suit land described in Schedule-B was claimed exclusively by Khanindra Nath Choudhury in exclusion of other co-owner or that the said Khanindra Narayan Choudhury had been possessing the Schedule-B land with all hostility against the respondents. It would be pertinent to mentioned that there is no pleadings in the written statement about the date when the appellants had declared their hostile possession against the respondents. Hence, in the absence of any evidence by the appellant, this Court has no material before it to hold that possession by one co-owner was not constructive possession of suit land by all the co-owners. The said issue No. 9 was rightly decided by the learned court below in favour of the respondents. 30. Hence, in the absence of any evidence by the appellant, this Court has no material before it to hold that possession by one co-owner was not constructive possession of suit land by all the co-owners. The said issue No. 9 was rightly decided by the learned court below in favour of the respondents. 30. Thus, in view of the decision on issues No. 5 to 9, the learned trial court had not erred in law or on facts in decreeing the suit by deciding issues No. 10 and 11 in favour of the respondents. 31. In view of the discussions above, the first point of determination is decided against the appellant by holding that the learned trial court was right in not dismissing the suit for non- joinder of legal heirs of Late Arati Choudhury. As a result of the foregoing discussions on each issue taken up by the learned trial court, the second point of determination is also decided against the appellants by holding that the decree passed in the suit of the respondents do not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity and, as such, the decree passed in the suit in favour of the respondents is not vitiated. 32. As the points of determination have been decided on the basis of pleadings and evidence on record, it is not deemed necessary to discuss the cases cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. 33. As a result, the appeal fails. Resultantly, the judgment and decree dated 17.05.2012, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Goalpara in Title Suit No. 5/2009 is upheld. Cost of appeal is decreed. 34. Draw up a decree accordingly. 35. Let the LCR be returned.