JUDGMENT : Suman Shyam, J. Heard Mr. A.C. Sarma, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel representing respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. None has appeared for the respondent No. 4. 2. This second appeal has been preferred against the concurrent judgment and decree dated 29-11-2012 passed by the learned District Judge, Goalpara in Title Appeal No. 01/2011 affirming the decree dated 06-10-2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Goalpara in Title Suit No. 09/2007. 3. The suit was jointly instituted by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as plaintiffs. The plaintiff No. 1, viz. Dhanu Bhanga Anchalik Unnayan Samity is an unregistered society and the plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 are the president and the secretary, respectively, of the said society. The suit of the plaintiffs was for declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiff No. 1 over a plot of land measuring 1 katha covered by Patta No. 508 (new)/521 (old) of P.P. No. 234 situated under village Madang Part- 2, Rangjuli Circle, P.S. Dhupdhara in the district of Goalpara. According to the plaintiffs, the suit land originally belonged to the proforma defendant/respondent No. 4 herein who had gifted the same to the plaintiff No. 1 by means of a registered deed of gift (Exhibit-6). But the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, who did not have any right, title or interest over the said plot of land had started filling up earth over the suit land with the sole intent of depriving the people of the locality living in 42 villages. 4. The suit of the plaintiff was contested by the defendants/appellant Nos. 1 and 2 by filing written statement, inter alia, questioning the maintainability of the suit. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court had framed the following issues: (1) Whether there is cause of action for the suit? (2) Whether the suit is maintainable in present form and manner? (3) Whether the plaintiffs have paid proper ad-valorem Court fee for having no possession over the suit land? (4) Whether the Plaintiff No. 1 has been possessing the suit land continuously for last 17 years for the interest of the public comprising 42 villagers? (5) Whether the defendants have right, title to and possession over the suit land? (6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to relief’s as claimed for? (4) Whether the Plaintiff No. 1 has been possessing the suit land continuously for last 17 years for the interest of the public comprising 42 villagers? (5) Whether the defendants have right, title to and possession over the suit land? (6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to relief’s as claimed for? (7) To what other relief or relief's the parties are entitled to? 5. It appears that the suit land was an annual patta land which was subsequently converted into periodic patta and was recorded in the name of the respondent No. 4. Pursuant to the execution of the gift deed, the revenue record has been corrected and the name of the plaintiff No. 1 had been recorded as pattadar in respect of the suit land. A perusal of the plaint goes to show that the plaintiffs have not mentioned in the plaint about the execution of the gift deed (Exhibit-6) by the proforma defendant No. 4 in favour of the plaintiff No. 1. However, during trial, the aforesaid gift deed was adduced in evidence, based on which, the learned Trial Court had decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. In the appeal preferred by the defendants being Title Appeal No. 01/2011, the learned District Judge has also affirmed the decree dated 06-10-2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Goalpara in Title Suit No. 09/2007. 6. While admitting the appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed by this Court: (1) Whether annual patta holder can transfer by way of gift the right, title and interest of the land before converted it to a periodic patta? (2) Whether Jamabandi/record of rights are the prima-facie proof of title? And (3) Whether Gift Deed (Exht.6) was executed and registered in accordance with Section 123 of Transfer of Property Act? 7. Subsequently, by the order dated 19-02-2019, two more additional substantial questions of law have been framed by this Court, which are as follows: (4) Whether the finding of issue No. 2 by the courts below is proper inasmuch as plaintiff/respondent, Anchalik Unnayan Samity is an unregistered society seeking for its declaration of right, title and interest over the suit property. (5) Whether the consideration of a gift deed Ext.6 by the courts below produced at the time of evidence by the plaintiffs/respondents without their being any pleading can be considered for deciding the issue Nos. 5 and 6. 8. (5) Whether the consideration of a gift deed Ext.6 by the courts below produced at the time of evidence by the plaintiffs/respondents without their being any pleading can be considered for deciding the issue Nos. 5 and 6. 8. The impugned judgment and decree has been assailed by Mr. Sarma primarily on two counts. Firstly, the plaintiff No. 1 being an unregistered society, the suit instituted in the name of such an unregistered society was not maintainable. Mr. Sarma submits that even for the plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 to maintain the suit, leave of the court under Order I Rule 8 CPC was necessary, which had neither been applied for nor obtained by the plaintiffs in this case. 9. The second ground urged by Mr. Sarma is that the plaintiffs have failed to plead about the existence of the gift deed (Exhibit-6). As such, the gift deed in question could not have been adduced in evidence by the plaintiffs during trial, without obtaining the leave of the court. In support of his aforesaid arguments Mr. Sarma has placed reliance on a decision of the Bombay High Court reported in (2011) 5 AIR Bom R 654 to contend that a suit in representative capacity under Order I Rule 8(i) CPC cannot be instituted without the leave of the court. 10. Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, on the other hand, submits that although there is no pleading as regards the gift deed (Exhibit-6), yet, the appellants have not raised any objection when the aforesaid document was adduced in evidence during trial. Mr. Das has, however, fairly submitted that the plaintiff No. 1 being an unregistered society, the suit was not maintainable without the leave of the court under Order I Rule 8 CPC. The learned counsel, however, submits that such a leave can be granted by the court even at this stage. In support of his argument, Mr. Das has relied upon a decision of the Allahabad High Court (Mahabir Vs. Anjuman Wazifatul Muslimin, (1935) AIR Allahabad 872). 11. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties and have also meticulously gone through the materials available on record. An issue being issue No. 2 had been framed by the learned Trial Court on the point of maintainability of the suit. Mr. Anjuman Wazifatul Muslimin, (1935) AIR Allahabad 872). 11. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties and have also meticulously gone through the materials available on record. An issue being issue No. 2 had been framed by the learned Trial Court on the point of maintainability of the suit. Mr. Sarma submits that the plea taken by the defendants on the point of maintainability of the suit had not been properly considered by the learned courts below. As such, the appeal is liable to be allowed on such count alone. 12. As has been mentioned above, the plaintiff No. 1 is an unregistered society and the plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 are its office bearers. Law is firmly settled that an unregistered society is not a juridical person and therefore, cannot sue nor can it be sued in a court of law. In the case of Mahabir (Supra), the Allahabad High Court has categorically held that an unregistered society cannot sue as a plaintiff. Since the plaintiff No. 1 is an unregistered society, hence, the suit instituted on behalf of the plaintiff No. 1 seeking declaration of the title over immovable property was clearly not maintainable in the eye of law. 13. Insofar as the right of the plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 to instituted the suit is concerned, such a right cannot be summarily denied in view of the provisions contained in Order I Rule 8 CPC. However, what is to be noted herein is that a suit under Order I Rule 8 CPC in a representative capacity can be instituted only with the permission of the court. Once such permission is granted, notice at the expense of the plaintiffs, would have to be issued to all the parties interested in the subject matter by following due process of law. In this case, the plaintiffs have neither mentioned as to who are the persons interested in the subject matter and on whose behalf representative suit is sought to be filed nor has such permission been sought from the court. As a matter of fact there is no prayer under Order I Rule 8 CPC in this case. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was not maintainable in the eye of law. As a matter of fact there is no prayer under Order I Rule 8 CPC in this case. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was not maintainable in the eye of law. Consequently, I am of the view that the decree passed by the learned court below suffers from a defect which cannot be rectified at this stage of proceeding. Since the suit itself is held to be not maintainable in the eye of law, it would not be necessary to go into the legality and validity of the findings recorded with regard to the other issues involved in the proceeding. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 29-11-2012 is, hereby set aside. The plaintiffs' suit stands dismissed. It is, however, made clear that notwithstanding the dismissal of the suit, it would be open for the office bearers of plaintiff No. 1 including the plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3, to institute appropriate proceeding in representative capacity, by obtaining leave of the court in accordance with law, if so advised. If such a suit is instituted by the plaintiffs, the same be dealt with in accordance with law. With the above observation, this appeal stands disposed of.