JUDGMENT : (M.A. Abdul Hakhim, J.) 1. The appellants are defendants 3, 4, 6, and 8 in O.S No. 737/2003 of the First Additional Munsiff Court Neyyattinkara. The 1st respondent was the plaintiff, the 2nd respondent was the 1st defendant, the 3rd respondent was the 2nd defendant, the 10th respondent was the 5th defendant and the 11th respondent was the 7th defendant. During the pendency of A.S 59/2007 before the First Appellate Court, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant died and the respondents 5 to 9 herein and the 4th respondent herein respectively were impleaded as his legal heirs. During the pendency of this appeal, the 3rd respondent herein/the 2nd defendant died and the 2nd appellant is recorded as the legal heir of the 3rd respondent as per memo dt 18.10.2019. 2. The parties are referred according to their status before the trial Court. 3. The plaintiff/Simon who was the son of one Joosadima filed the suit for recovery of possession of Plaint B schedule property having an extent of about 9 cents of land which is the western part of Plaint A Schedule property having an extent of 19.250 cents of land which is marked as Plot ‘RSTUIJ’ in C1 (a) Plan appended to the Decree in O.S No. 78/1993 of the Second Additional Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara, after removing the defendants from the Plaint B Schedule Property and the building therein and for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from entering into Plaint A Schedule Property. 4. The suit was filed with the averments that the Plaint Scheduled Properties originally belonged to Joosadima, father of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant; that as per Ext.A1 Settlement Deed dt 15.03.1975 Joosadima gifted Plaint A Schedule property to the plaintiff; that plaintiff accepted the Settlement Deed; that on the basis of the Settlement Deed, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the Plaint Schedule Property; that the building therein was constructed by the plaintiff; that the plaintiff filed O.S 78/1993 before the Munsiff’s Court Neyyattinkara seeking declaration of title, possession and for putting up boundaries of the property derived by him as per A schedule in Ext. A1 settlement deed subject to the life interest in favour of his mother reserved as per Ext.A1; that the said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff; that the mother of the plaintiff died after the decree; that the boundary was put up in execution of the Decree in O.S 78/1993; that the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property; that the 1st defendant allowed the other defendants to trespass into Plaint B Schedule Property; that the defendants 2 to 8 started residing in Plaint B schedule Property from 27.12.2001; that the plaintiff is permanently residing in Malappuram and therefore he could not prevent the trespass of the defendants and that the plaintiff is entitled to get recover its possession and injunction sought for. 5. The 4th defendant filed a Written Statement for herself and another Written Statement as Power of Attorney Holder of the 3rd defendant and guardian of defendant Nos. 7 and 8 contending that 84 ½ cents of property originally belonged to Joosadima; that he executed Ext.A1 Settlement Deed reserving life interest in favour of him and his wife over the property; that Party No.4 Andrews, Party No.5 Joseph and Party No.6 Francis had not signed Ext.A1; that they have not accepted Ext.A1; that the property was not demarcated as per Ext.A1; that the parties to Ext.A1 had not affected mutation and paid tax; that Ext.A1 had not come into effect; that the plaintiff obstructed Joosadima from taking income from the property scheduled in Ext.A1; that therefore Joosadima with the knowledge of his wife and children cancelled Ext.A1 by executing Ext. B1 Cancellation Deed dt 01.03.1978; that since the plaintiff and Joseph were not in station they did not sign Ext.B1; that by his subsequent conduct the plaintiff acknowledged Ext.B1; that after Ext.B1 Joosadima sold 10 cents of land to the 1st defendant as per Ext.B2 Sale Deed dt 06.03.1978; that from the date of Ext.B2 the 1st defendant obtained possession of the said property; that the 1st defendant constructed compound wall around the property covered by Ext.B2; that he constructed building during the year 1979; that the building was assessed by the Panchayat in the name of the 1st defendant; that the 1st defendant was residing in the building with his parents; that Joosadima executed Ext.B20 Will dt 06.03.1978; that after the death of Joosadima Ext.B20 Will came into effect; that the plaintiff also derived 10 cents of property as per A schedule in Ext.B20 Will; that the parties are enjoying the properties as per Ext.B20; that after excluding ¾ cents where tombs of parents of the 1st defendant situated, the 1st defendant sold 9 ¼ cents of land and building therein to the 2nd defendant as per Ext.B6 Sale Deed dt 27.12.2001; that as per Ext.B6 Sale Deed the 2nd defendant was enjoying the property; that mutation was effected in the name of the 2nd defendant; that as per Re-Survey the property purchased by 2nd defendant was recorded in Re.Sy No. 100/10/1; that the plaintiff did not raise any objection to the Re- Survey and hence the Re-Survey became final and binding on the plaintiff; that the 2nd defendant sold the said property to the 3rd defendant who is the husband of the 4th defendant as per Ext.B8 dt 16.06.2003; that thereafter the defendants 3 to 8 are residing in the building in the said property; that the 3rd defendant constructed compound wall and renovated the building by spending Rs.3 lakhs; that on enquiry it is revealed that the plaintiff obtained the decree in O.S No.78/1993 fraudulently and by suppressing Ext.B1 cancellation deed and Ext.B20 Will; that at the time of filing of O.S. No.78/1993, Ext.A1 Settlement Deed was not in existence; that plaint A and B schedule properties are not in the possession of the plaintiff; that the plaintiff obtained decree by fraudulent means; that therefore the said decree is void and not binding on the defendants; that no boundary was put up in execution of decree in O.S.No.78/1993; that the plaintiff has no cause of action as the defendants did not trespass into Plaint B Schedule Property; that the defendants are bonafide purchasers for value; that the 3rd defendant has absolute title over 9 ¼ cents of land which he obtained as per Ext.B8; that the suit is bad for non joinder of parties since the siblings of the plaintiff are not made parties and that the suit is barred by limitation. 6. The plaintiff was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A7 were marked from his side. The 4th defendant was examined as DW1, the 1st defendant was examined as DW2, the Advocate Commissioner who filed Ext.C1 Report and C1(a) Plan was examined as DW5, and 3 other witnesses were examined as DW3, DW4, and DW6 and Exts.B1 to B20 were marked from the side of the defendants. 7. The Trial Court as per judgment dt 28.02.2007 decreed the suit declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the Plot A2, A4, A5, A18, A19, A13, A14, A17, Y, Y1, A1 in Ext.C1(a) Plan having an extent of 8 ½ cents from the defendants and issuing permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the Plot A2, A4, A5, A6, A7, L, L1, L2, A9, A10 A14, A17, Y, Y1 A1 in Ext.C1(a) plan having an extent of 19 ¼ cents making it clear that injunction with respect to the Plot A2, A4, A5, A18, A19, A13, A14, A17, Y, Y1, A1 plot will come into force only after the plaintiff obtains possession of the said plot. 8. Defendants 3 to 8 filed A.S.No.59/2007 before the First Appellate Court challenging the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and the same was dismissed as per judgment dt 11.04.2016 confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court by the First Appellate Court. 9. This Regular Second Appeal is admitted framing the following Substantial Questions of Law as per order dt 26.07.2017: 1. When Ext.A1 family arrangement was subsequently cancelled by all the parties except the plaintiff and subsequently the parents of the parties had dealt with the properties as their own and had sold 10 cents of property to the predecessors-in-interest of the appellant, is this not a case wherein the appellants are entitled to claim title over the property? 2. When the predecessors-in-interest of the appellant and in continuation the appellants have been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property to the exclusion of and adverse to the interest of all, can the claim for recovery of possession be sustained? 10. I heard the counsel for the appellant Sri.G.S.Reghunath and Smt. I.Sheeladevi for the respondents 5 to 9. 11. 10. I heard the counsel for the appellant Sri.G.S.Reghunath and Smt. I.Sheeladevi for the respondents 5 to 9. 11. The Counsel for the appellant contended that Ext.A1 Settlement deed did not take effect as it was not accepted; that the plaintiff did not affect mutation on the basis of Ext.A1; that acceptance of the gift by the donee is mandatory as per S 122 of the Transfer of Property Act; that there was a condition in Ext.A1 that plaintiff should pay Rs.500/- each to the Parties Nos.5, 6 and 7 on their demand, the plaintiff did not comply with such condition and hence the plaintiff cannot claim the property as per Ext.A1; that even though Ext.B1 Cancellation Deed was not signed by the plaintiff on account of his absence the parties continued to hold the properties fully accepting Ext.B1 Cancellation Deed and that is why in Ext.B20 Will 10 cents of property was allotted to the plaintiff also as per A schedule; that Ext.A3 judgment and A4 decree are not binding on the defendants as it was an ex parte one and the defendants were not parties to the same; that the schedule descriptions in the plaint are vague; that since life interest is reserved in Ext.A1 settlement deed in favour of Joosadima and his wife, the plaintiff could not have taken possession of the plaint schedule property by accepting the gift; that before accepting the gift by the plaintiff the gift was cancelled by Ext.B1; that Exts.B2 and B3 would show that Ext.A1 settlement did not come into force and that without seeking declaration of the title of the plaint schedule property, the relief for recovery of possession of the same is not maintainable. 12. 12. Per contra, the Counsel for respondents 5 to 9 who are the legal heirs of the plaintiff contended that Ext.A1 Settlement came into force on the date of execution of the same; that the dispute could not be raised with respect to the title and possession of the plaint schedule properties since the same is covered by Ext.A3 judgment and A4 decree in which the 1st defendant was a party; that the 1st defendant executed Ext.B6 after Ext.A3 judgment and A4 decree and as on the date of execution of Ext.B6 going by Ext.A3 judgment and A4 decree the 1st defendant was not having any right or interest in the plaint schedule property and hence the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court which is confirmed by the First Appellate Court are perfectly legal and valid. 13. The plaintiff claimed the title over Plaint B schedule property which is part of Plaint A Schedule property as per Ext.A1 Settlement Deed whereas the defendants claimed the title over the Plaint B Schedule Property on the basis of Ext.B2 Sale Deed executed by Joosadima in favour of the 1st defendant after cancelling Ext.A1 by Ext.B1. The principal question to be considered is whether Ext.A1 had come into effect and whether the cancellation of Ext.A1 by Ext.B1 is valid. 14. Ext.A1 Settlement Deed is seen executed by the father of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant Joosadima in which the wife and all the children of Joosadima are made parties. Except for Parties Nos. 4, 5, and 6, all others signed in Ext.A1. The plaintiff has also signed Ext.A1. For a Settlement/Gift, there is no requirement of law mandating signature by the Donee. The only requirement as per S.122 of the Transfer of Property Act is that the donee has to accept the gift. The signature of the plaintiff in Ext.A1 would prove that Ext.A1 was executed with the knowledge of the plaintiff. If it is executed with the knowledge of the donee, the normal rule is that the donee has accepted the gift. In such a case, the burden is on the person who challenges the Will to prove that the donee had not accepted the gift. If it is executed with the knowledge of the donee, the normal rule is that the donee has accepted the gift. In such a case, the burden is on the person who challenges the Will to prove that the donee had not accepted the gift. In Narayani Bhanumathi V.Lelitha Bhai [ 1973 KLT 961 ] this Court has held that normally when a person gifts property to another, one may expect the other to accept such gift when it comes to his knowledge. It is apposite to extract Paragraph No.4 of the said decision. “4 The evidence bearing on the question of acceptance of the gift deed will have to be appreciated in the background of the circumstance relating to the execution of such a deed. There may be cases where slightest evidence of such acceptance would be sufficient, There may be still cases where the circumstances themselves eloquently speak to such acceptance. Normally, when a person gifts properties to another and it is not an onerous gift, one may expect the other to accept such a gift when once it comes to his knowledge, since normally, any person would be only too willing to promote his own interests. May be in particular cases there may be peculiar circumstances which may show that the donee would not have accepted the gift. But these are rather the exceptions than the rule. It is only normal to assume that the donee would have accepted the gift deed. One would have to look into the circumstances of the case in order to see whether acceptance could be read. Mere silence may sometimes be indicative of acceptance provided it is shown that the donee knew about the gift. Essentially, this is a question of fact to be considered on the background of circumstances of each case. 15. There is a specific recital in Ext.B1 that Ext.A1 has come into force on 15/03/1975 and that Ext.B1 is executed on account of subsequent difficulties faced by the Donor. It also indicates that the gift is accepted by the plaintiff/donee. 16. The contention of the Counsel for the appellant that since life interest is reserved in Ext.A1 settlement deed in favour of Joosadima and his wife, the plaintiff could not have taken possession of the plaint schedule property by accepting the gift before the death of Joosadima and his wife. 16. The contention of the Counsel for the appellant that since life interest is reserved in Ext.A1 settlement deed in favour of Joosadima and his wife, the plaintiff could not have taken possession of the plaint schedule property by accepting the gift before the death of Joosadima and his wife. I am unable to accept such a contention. If such a contention is upheld, the nature and character of a gift would be changed to that of a Will, as the Gift would take effect only after the death of the Donor. Hence the proposition that acceptance of a gift will not take effect when a life interest is created in favour of the donee, till determination of life interest is unsustainable. 17. The plaintiff derived 30 cents as per A Schedule Item No.1 in Ext.A1. Though the defendants contended that there was a building in A Schedule Item No.1 Property in Ext.A1 and Joosadima and his wife and children continued to reside in the said building in spite of the Settlement Deed, no such building is seen in A Schedule Item No.1 in Ext.A1, whereas a building is seen included in A Schedule Item No.2 Property. Admittedly, the Plaint Schedule properties in the present suit are part of A Schedule Item No.1 Property in Ext.A1 document. 18. Mutation in favour of the donee is not essential to prove that the donee has accepted the gift. Transfer of registry in revenue records is done only for fiscal purposes. It is not a determining factor while considering a title, though in some circumstances it may be a piece of evidence while considering rival titles. 19. The mere fact that some of the donees have not signed Ext.A1 is not a circumstance to hold that Ext.A1 has not come into force. When the gift as per Ext.A1 is accepted by the donee, the donor can cancel the same only by a document signed by both the donor and donee or by setting aside the same through the Court of law. A Gift cannot be cancelled unilaterally by the donor. In Gopalakrishnan M.K and others v. Rajamma M.K and others [ 2006(3) KLJ 640 ] that if the donee had accepted the gift the donor has no right to cancel the gift deed by executing a cancellation deed and it can only be done by instituting a suit for the same. A Gift cannot be cancelled unilaterally by the donor. In Gopalakrishnan M.K and others v. Rajamma M.K and others [ 2006(3) KLJ 640 ] that if the donee had accepted the gift the donor has no right to cancel the gift deed by executing a cancellation deed and it can only be done by instituting a suit for the same. It is well settled by the decision of this Court in Picha Gangadharan v. Pachi Kamalakshi and others [ 1993(2) KLJ 974 ] that any change in the donor's attitude towards the donee after the execution of the gift deed cannot be a ground to revoke the gift deed. 20. With respect to the condition incorporated in Ext.A1 to pay Rs.500/- each to parties Nos.5,6, and 7 by the plaintiff, as per the recitals in Ext.A1 those conditions are to comply only when those parties demand fulfilment of the same and non-fulfilment of a condition is not a ground to cancel the gift deed. Ext.A1 is not an onerous gift as defined under S.127 of the Transfer of Property Act. 21. Since Ext.B1 cancellation deed is admittedly not signed by the plaintiff, the said cancellation is not valid with respect to the property gifted to the plaintiff as per the Ext.A1 settlement deed. The title of the plaintiff still subsists on the strength of Ext.A1 settlement deed. 22. Though the counsel for the appellant contended that Ext.A3 judgment and A4 decree are not binding on the defendants since the defendants are not parties to the same, I find that the plaintiff filed O.S.No.78/1993 seeking declaration of title, possession, and for putting up boundaries of the property derived by him as per A schedule in Ext. A1 subject to the life interest in favour of his mother reserved as per Ext.A1. From Ext.A3 and A4, it is seen that the 1st defendant who is the Predecessor-in-interest of the defendants 2 and 3 herein was the 2nd defendant in O.S 78/1993 in which the said judgment and decree were passed. The other defendants were the mother and siblings of the plaintiff. Ext.A3 judgment reveals that defendants 1 to 3 were ex parte in the said suit. Ext.A5 Vakalath would show that defendants 1,2,5 and 6 had filed Vakalath in O.S No. 78/1993. The other defendants were the mother and siblings of the plaintiff. Ext.A3 judgment reveals that defendants 1 to 3 were ex parte in the said suit. Ext.A5 Vakalath would show that defendants 1,2,5 and 6 had filed Vakalath in O.S No. 78/1993. Ext.A6 B Diary would show that defendants 1,2 5 and 6 participated in the proceeding in O.S 78/1993 and they were made ex parte on 22.01.1994. It is clear from the evidence of the 1st defendant as DW2 that the 1st defendant had given Vakalath to Adv. Sri.Rajan in the execution proceedings in O.S 78/1993. The 2nd defendant claims title over the Plaint B schedule Property through the 1st defendant on the basis of Ext.B6 subsequent to Ext.A3 and A4 judgment and decree. The 3rd defendant claims title over the Plaint B schedule Property through the 2nd defendant on the basis of Ext.B8. Hence the defendants 1 to 3 are bound by Ext.A3 and A4 judgment and decree. 23. According to the defendants, the present title holder of Plaint B schedule property is the 3rd defendant on the basis of Ext.B8 dt 16.06.2003 executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 3rd defendant who derived it as per Ext.B6 from the 1st defendant. It is clear from the Ext.A1 settlement deed, Ext.A3 judgment, and A4 decree that the 1st defendant did not have any right over the plaint schedule property as on the date of execution of Ext.B6. Hence the claim of the 2nd and 3rd defendants over the plaint B schedule property through the 1st defendant is unsustainable. 24. The defendants contend that the Exts.A3 and A4 judgment and decree were obtained by fraud. Of course, S.44 of the Indian Evidence Act enables any party to a suit to show that any judgment delivered by a Court was obtained by fraud or collusion. But a mere plea of fraud alone is not sufficient, the party pleading fraud has to plead it with material details as to how the fraud was played and substantiate the same with convincing evidence. Such material pleadings with respect to the fraud alleged are absent in the present case. There is nothing on record to indicate the alleged fraud. But a mere plea of fraud alone is not sufficient, the party pleading fraud has to plead it with material details as to how the fraud was played and substantiate the same with convincing evidence. Such material pleadings with respect to the fraud alleged are absent in the present case. There is nothing on record to indicate the alleged fraud. Since the 1st defendant had participated in the proceedings in the said suit and in the execution, the 1st defendant had every opportunity to expose the alleged fraud, on the strength of Ext.B1 and B2 in O.S No. 78/1993 and advance arguments on the basis of the same, but he did not avail the opportunity. Hence the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff obtained Ext.A3 judgment and A4 decree by playing fraud is unsustainable. It is well settled by the decision of this Court in M.K Gopalakrishnan and others v. M. Rajamma [2006 (3) KLT 640] that a party alleging fraud is bound to establish it by cogent evidence and mere suspicion is not enough. 25. The Counsel for the appellant contended that the plaint schedule property continued in the possession of the 1st defendant after the execution of the Ext.B2 sale deed by Joosadima in favour of him subsequent to Ext.B1 cancellation deed and the building therein was assessed in the name of the 1st defendant, the defendants have not produced any documents to prove the same. Though Ext.B4 would show that the building was assessed in the name of 1st defendant, it is after Ext.A3 and A4 judgment and decree. All the documents produced with respect to the building are subsequent to Ext.B6 Sale Deed dated 27.12.2001 which is the date of cause of action stated by the plaintiff in the plaint. Ext.A3 judgment and A4 decree have declared the title and possession of the plaint A schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. Hence the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the possession of the plaint schedule property continued in 1st defendant could not be entertained. 26. The contention of the defendants that the plaintiff lost his right over plaint schedule property due to adverse possession of the defendants is also not sustainable since as per the pleadings, the defendants do not admit the title of the plaintiff. According to the defendants, the plaintiff has no title over the plaint schedule property. 26. The contention of the defendants that the plaintiff lost his right over plaint schedule property due to adverse possession of the defendants is also not sustainable since as per the pleadings, the defendants do not admit the title of the plaintiff. According to the defendants, the plaintiff has no title over the plaint schedule property. It is well settled by the decision of this Court in Sunny v. Amaruddin [2004(1) KLT SN 83] that one of the important ingredients to claim adverse possession is that the person who claims adverse possession must have set up hostile title to the true owner that a person merely pleads that he is in possession of land by a derivative title from a person who had no right over the property cannot claim adverse possession, unless he pleads that he was holding the property adverse to the real owner and proves the same in evidence and that he should also show that the possession animus to the real owner is with the knowledge of the owner. In the case on hand, defendants 2 and 3 claimed derivative title from the 1st defendant who did not have a title over the property. The 1st defendant while he was examined as DW 2 had no case that he was possessing the property adverse to the interest of the plaintiff. At any rate, the plaintiff's possession over the plaint schedule property is declared in Ext.A3 judgment and A4 decree. It indicates that the plaintiff was in possession of the property at least on the date of Ext.A3 and A4 dated 31/08/1994. As per Article 65 of the Limitation Act, a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property on the strength of title is to be filed within a period of 12 years when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. Here the present suit is filed on 13.10.2003 within 12 years from Ext.A3 and A4. There is no question of any adverse possession and limitation and the suit is filed within the period of limitation. 27. Here the present suit is filed on 13.10.2003 within 12 years from Ext.A3 and A4. There is no question of any adverse possession and limitation and the suit is filed within the period of limitation. 27. Since the title of the plaint A schedule property is already declared in favour of the plaintiff in Ext.A3 judgment and A4 decree to which the 1st defendant is a party, there is no need for the plaintiff to seek a declaration of title again in the present suit for recovery of possession of the property from the defendants who include the assignees from the 1st defendant. 28. With respect to the contention of the Counsel for the appellant that the plaint schedule properties are not properly identified, I find that the claim of the plaintiff is on the basis of Ext.A1 settlement. According to the plaintiff, plaint B schedule property is part of A schedule Item No.1 property given to him as per Ext.A1 settlement deed. The suit for declaration of title, possession, and fixation of boundaries filed by the plaintiff as O.S No. 78/1993 is decreed in his favour as per Ext.A3 judgment and A4 decree. The mother and other siblings including the 1st defendant are parties to the said suit. In the said suit the plaintiff's title and possession over the plaint schedule properties to the extent of ‘RSTUIJ’ Plot in Ext.C1(a) and A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8 Plot in Ext.C2(a) subject to the life interest of the mother is declared and the plaintiff is allowed to put up permanent boundaries through STUI line and RJ line in Ext.C1(a) at his own cost through Court. As per Ext.C1(a) plan appended to Ext.A4 decree the extent of the ‘RSTUIJ’ plot is 19.250 cents which is the plaint A schedule property in the present suit. The said ‘RSTUIJ’ Plot was identified after identifying 84 ½ cents originally belonging to Joosadima. The said 84 ½ cents is found to be having an extent of only 54.450 cents on measurement. The A schedule in Ext.A1 Settlement Deed having an extent of 30 cents is found to be having only 19.250 cents on measurement. Ext.A7 Commission Report dt 13.01.2003 would show that the Advocate Commissioner fixed the boundary of A schedule property herein as per Ext.A3 judgment and A4 decree. 29. The A schedule in Ext.A1 Settlement Deed having an extent of 30 cents is found to be having only 19.250 cents on measurement. Ext.A7 Commission Report dt 13.01.2003 would show that the Advocate Commissioner fixed the boundary of A schedule property herein as per Ext.A3 judgment and A4 decree. 29. In Ext.C1(a) Plan, the Surveyor has identified Plaint A schedule property which is the ‘RSTUIJ’ Plot in Ext.A3 judgment and A4 decree and thereafter identified Plaint B schedule property as a part of the same having an extent of 8 ½ cents on the eastern side of the road. There is no ambiguity with regard to the identification of plaint schedule properties in the Ext.C1(a) plan. 30. The contention of the Counsel for the appellant is that the suit is bad for the non-joinder of necessary parties. According to him, all the legal heirs of Joosadima are necessary parties since the matter relates to the validity of Ext.A1 and Ext.B1 with respect to the properties of Joosadima. The present suit is for recovery of possession of a property, the title and possession are already declared in Ext.A3 and A4 judgment and decree. All the legal heirs of Joosadima were parties to Ext.A3 and A4 judgment and decree. The case of the defendants is that the Plaint schedule property originally belonged to 1st defendant as per Ext.B6 Sale deed executed by Joosadima. The other legal heirs of Joosadima are not in any way affected by an adjudication in which the property already divested by Joosadima is involved. Hence the suit is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 31. Since it is found that Ext.A1 settlement deed is valid and the same could not be cancelled as per Ext.B1 and the 1st defendant who is the Predecessor-in-interest of the appellants could not claim possession of the plaint schedule property on the strength of Ext.B2 sale deed in view of Ext.A3 judgment and A4 decree, the Substantial Questions of Law No.1 is answered in the negative and the Substantial Question of Law No.2 is answered in the affirmative, both in favour of the respondents 5 to 9 who are the legal heirs of the plaintiff. 32. The above Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. The parties shall bear their respective costs.