JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2020 passed by the learned District Judge-II, Jamtara in Civil Appeal No.28 of 2015. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the plaintiff was not a party to Title Suit No.51 of 2000 which was filed in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-III, Jamtara by the respondent first party of this second appeal with a prayer for declaration of their right, title, interest and possession along with pro-forma defendants of the suit and in alternative for partition of the suit property. 4. The case of the plaintiffs of Title Suit No. 51 of 2000 in brief is that the parties to the suit are Hindus and are governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. The suit schedule ‘A’ property was recorded exclusively in the name of Jhari Teli in the last survey settlement and Jhari Teli was having possession over the suit land. Jhari Teli and Bihari Teli grew trees over the suit land. Ahlad Teli, Jhari Teli and Bihari Teli are three brothers and their names were recorded in same jamabandi having separate possession over the parts of the land. The suit land was having separate possession of Jhari Teli. Ahlad Teli died in or about 1940 and shortly after the death of Ahlad Teli his wife also died. The two sons of Ahlad Teli namely Huro and Budhan also died leaving behind only Jaldo Devi who is the defendant no.2 as his heir; as wife of Budhan predeceased him. The defendant nos. 1 to 11 are the descendants and heirs of Huro. Jhari Teli died without any surviving issue and his wife predeceased him. So upon the death of Jhari Teli, the suit property devolved upon his surviving brother Bihari Teli. The plaintiffs are descendants of Bihari Teli. Jhari Teli during his lifetime entrusted the suit property to Bihari Teli by executing a village paper for the same on 02.06.1944. Jhari Teli was maintained by Bihari Teli and his family members. As the plaintiff no.1 adopted Dhaneshwar Mondal as her son, the principal defendants became hostile against the plaintiffs. During May-June, 1999, the principal defendants created disturbance of the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. Jhari Teli was maintained by Bihari Teli and his family members. As the plaintiff no.1 adopted Dhaneshwar Mondal as her son, the principal defendants became hostile against the plaintiffs. During May-June, 1999, the principal defendants created disturbance of the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. Proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. and 107 Cr.P.C. were initiated. During the pendency of Section 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding, the principal defendants forcibly started raising two hutments on the suit plot no. 2185 however the hutments raised by the principal defendants are lying abandoned. The principal defendants also disturbed the cultivation of the land by the plaintiffs; hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit. 5. The principal defendants in their written statement besides challenging the maintainability of the suit further pleaded that Jhari Teli was one among the five brothers and the other two brothers being Teko Teli and Debi Teli who died before the settlement but their sons Chowa Teli, Burhan Teli and Bideshi Teli got their names recorded in the survey record. 6. The defendant nos. 1-6 in their written statement disputed the genealogy furnished by the plaintiffs being incorrect and incomplete. These defendants further pleaded that upon the death of Jhari Teli, the suit property devolved upon his only surviving brother Ahlad Teli as Bihari Teli died in the year 1940 prior to Ahlad Teli. Janki Teli died in the year 1950 leaving behind his widow and two daughters Sohgi and Susari. Susari died issueless while Sohgi died leaving behind two sons Hemlal Mondal and Govind Mondal. These defendants also pleaded that Jhari Teli and his wife used to live with Ahlad Teli during his old age. These defendants further pleaded that the plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit property. 7. The proforma defendant nos. 7 and 8 in their written statement admitted and adopted the written statement of the defendant nos.1-6. 8. The defendant nos.9, 10 and 11 in their written statement pleaded that Budhan’s widow died in the year 1960 whereupon her interest devolved upon Jhaldo Devi. 9. The defendant no.12 and defendant nos. 12 (a) to 12 (f) in their written statement pleaded that Budhan died in September-October, 1956 leaving behind his widow Jaldo Devi as his next heir and successor. The mother of these defendants-Jaldo Devi was in peaceful possession of Ahlad Teli’s properties jointly with the defendant nos. 9. The defendant no.12 and defendant nos. 12 (a) to 12 (f) in their written statement pleaded that Budhan died in September-October, 1956 leaving behind his widow Jaldo Devi as his next heir and successor. The mother of these defendants-Jaldo Devi was in peaceful possession of Ahlad Teli’s properties jointly with the defendant nos. 1 to 11 and at present the defendants are in joint possession thereof. 10. The proforma defendant no.13 filed separate written statement and challenged the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds and claimed to be the adopted son of Aato Teli @ Mondal with the consent of Lakho Mondalain and the adoption deed was executed and registered before the Sub-Registrar, Jamtara. The defendant no.3 pleaded that plaintiff no.1 Lakho Devi, since deceased has got 1/3rd share and the plaintiff Shakuntala also has 1/3rd share over the suit land. 11. On the basis of rival pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court settled the following seven issues:- (I) Whether the suit is maintainable as framed? (II) Whether the plaintiff has got valid cause of action for the suit? (III) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of the necessary parties? (IV) Whether Bihari Teli was alive at the time of death of Jhari Teli? (V) Whether Ahlad Teli predeceased Jhari Teli? (VI) Whether there is any unity of title and possession between the parties? (VII) To what relief or reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled for? 12. In support of their case, the plaintiffs examined altogether seven witnesses and proved the documents which have been marked Ext. 1 to Ext. 7. On the other hand from the side of the defendants, the defendants examined altogether six witnesses and proved the documents which have been marked Ext. A to Ext. B/2. 13. The learned trial court first took up issue nos. I and III together and after considering the materials in the record came to the conclusion that from oral evidence adduced by the parties and Ext.7-certified copy of the parcha and rent receipts which have been marked Ext. 1 series it becomes clear that the suit property is not joint property rather it is the exclusive property of Jhari Teli and apart from successors of Ahlad Teli and Bihari Teli, other persons are not concerned in any way with the suit properties. 1 series it becomes clear that the suit property is not joint property rather it is the exclusive property of Jhari Teli and apart from successors of Ahlad Teli and Bihari Teli, other persons are not concerned in any way with the suit properties. Therefore, the suit is not bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties and the suit is maintainable in its present form and decided the issue nos. I and III in favour of the plaintiffs. The learned trial court next took up issue no. II and after considering the materials in the record came to the conclusion that there was valid cause of action for filing the suit and thus decided the issue no. II in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. The learned trial court further took up issue nos. IV and V together and after considering the evidence in the record came to the conclusion that it could not be established that Bihari Teli was alive at the time of death of Jhari Teli and decided the issue no. IV in favour of the contesting defendants and against the plaintiffs and on the basis of the evidence, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that Ahlad Teli died in or about 1946 and Ahlad Teli thus predeceased Jhari Teli. Learned trial court next took up issue no. VI and considering the fact that the suit for partition is not for the entire family property but only for the property of Jhari Teli came to the conclusion that there is unity of title and possession of the parties over the properties of Jhari Teli and decided the issue no. VI in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. Lastly, the learned trial court took up issue nos. VII and came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary decree of partition adjoining the moiety share of plaintiffs and proforma defendants in regard to the suit properties and passed a preliminary decree. 14. The appellant of this second appeal even though was not the party to the suit filed Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2015 whereas the seven principal defendants filed Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2015. 15. The learned first appellate court disposed of both the Civil Appeal Nos. 26 of 2015 and 28 of 2015 by the common impugned judgment; dismissing the appeals. 16. 15. The learned first appellate court disposed of both the Civil Appeal Nos. 26 of 2015 and 28 of 2015 by the common impugned judgment; dismissing the appeals. 16. Before the learned first appellate court, it was contended by the plaintiffs who were the respondents before the learned first appellate court that contesting defendant Baldeb Mondal @ Teli has set up the present appellant to file Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2015 against the same judgment and decree even though the present appellant – Debu Mondal was not a party to the suit and obviously the decree would not bind him but still with ulterior motive the appellant filed Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2015. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs who were the respondents before the learned first appellate court that the father of this Appellant could never be the heir of Jhari Teli; since his father was not the brother of Jhari Teli. 17. On the basis of the materials in the record and submissions made before it, the learned first appellate court, framed the following two points for determination :- “(A). Whether the learned lower court has rightly decided the issue nos. (III) and (V) against the defendants/appellants and appellant Debu Mondal regarding their claim of non-joinder and misjoinder of parties and about the time of death of Jhari Teli? (B). Whether the defendants/appellants are entitled for the relief as claimed in the plaint and how far the learned lower court was justified in deciding the Issue Nos. (VI) and (VII) in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents?” 18. The learned first appellate court took up both the points for determinations together and after making independent appreciation of the evidence in the record came to the conclusion that the learned trial court has rightly observed and decided the issue of non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties and considering the fact that Jhari Teli’s property is separate from others which was even corroborated by D.Ws.2, 3 and 4, the learned first appellate court came to the conclusion that the learned trial court has rightly decided the issue no. (VI) and (VII) regarding unity of title and possession between the parties and dismissed the appeal. 19. (VI) and (VII) regarding unity of title and possession between the parties and dismissed the appeal. 19. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial court as well as the learned first appellate court has committed grave error by answering the issue no. III, whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary party in its right perspective. It was also contended that the suit was wrongly framed by not including all the lands under joint cultivation and the land of Jhari Teli are only a part of the joint cultivated land. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that both the learned trial court and the learned first appellate court have committed gross error in considering the genealogy given by the contesting defendants. Hence, it is submitted that the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below be set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs be dismissed after formulating appropriate substantial question of law. 20. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the learned trial court has granted the alternative relief to the plaintiffs for partition of the properties. The suit is for partition of the self-acquired properties of Jhari Teli. As rightly observed by the learned first appellate court that D.W.1 in paragraph nos. 15 and 17 of his deposition admitted that Jhari Teli’s property was being possessed by his father, which establishes that Jhari Teli’s properties were separate from others and D.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 have also corroborated the same. Thus, the alternative prayer of the plaintiffs being only in respect of partition of Jhari Teli’s properties; obviously there was no necessity for impleading coparceners of other joint family property, if any who were not the legal heirs of Jhari Teli. Otherwise also, the appellant being admittedly not a party to the Title Suit No. 51 of 2000, the decree passed in the said suit was not binding upon the appellant so obviously he has no locus standi to challenge the decree passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-III, Jamtara in Title Suit No. 51 of 2000. 21. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. 22. Div.)-III, Jamtara in Title Suit No. 51 of 2000. 21. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. 22. Accordingly, this second appeal being without any merit is dismissed but under the circumstances without any costs. 23. Let the copy of the Judgment be sent to the learned court below forthwith.