JUDGMENT : (PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J. ) Heard Mr. M.H. Choudhury, learned senior counsel representing the appellants as well as Mr. S.P. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This is a Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) whereby the judgment and decree dated 15.05.2010 passed by the court of learned District Judge, Hailakandi in Title Suit No.21/2006 is under challenge. 3. Late Irfan Ali Laskar was the owner of the suit property. On 08.12.1938, on the basis of an agreement, he handed over the said plot of land to Girish Ch. Bhuiyan on monthly rent basis to be payable at the yearend. The yearly rent was Rs.110/- only. The land was handed over to Girish Ch. Bhuiyan for a period of 15 years. 4. Girish Ch. Bhuiyan was doing business of kerosene oil on the said land. In the meantime, Irfan Ali Laskar died on 23.07.1955. He left behind his six sons and three daughters, namely- Abdul Wahab Laskar, Abdul Latif Laskar, Abdul Haque Laskar, Abdul Matin Laskar, Abdul Razzak Laskar, Abdul Monnan Laskar, Hawatun Nessa, Surotun Nessa and Sayatun Nessa. 5. It may be stated that after expiry of the period 15 years on 08.12.1953, as mentioned hereinbefore, Girish Ch. Bhuiyan had surrendered the plot of land to late Irfan Ali Laskar. Girish Ch. Bhuiyan asked for permission to temporarily use the said land till he gets another suitable plot of land to carry on his business. Irfan Ali Laskar allowed the request of Girish Ch. Bhuiyan allowing him to temporarily continue to do his business from the said plot of land. 6. After that, Irfan Ali Laskar had died. His sons Abdul Latif Laskar, Abdul Wahab Laskar, Abdul Razzak Laskar and Abdul Matin also expired within a short period of time. Therefore, their heirs, being the plaintiffs of the suit, could not take any steps to remove Girish Ch. Bhuiyan from the suit land. 7. Subsequently, the plaintiffs found that the suit land was occupied by another entity called H.C.R.K. Bhuiyan. According to the plaintiffs, this H.C.R.K. Bhuiyan was unknown to them. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit praying for eviction of the defendants from the suit land. 8. The defendants denied all the averments on the plaint. They have claimed that they have been continuously occupying the suit land since the days of their ancestor Girish Ch. Bhuiyan. According to the plaintiffs, this H.C.R.K. Bhuiyan was unknown to them. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit praying for eviction of the defendants from the suit land. 8. The defendants denied all the averments on the plaint. They have claimed that they have been continuously occupying the suit land since the days of their ancestor Girish Ch. Bhuiyan. The name H.C.R.K. Bhuiyan is the name of the business of the defendants and it was known to the plaintiffs. According to the defendants, they are tenants by law and they cannot be overthrown from the suit land. 9. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues: i. Whether Girish Ch. Bhuiyan contracted the lease of the suit property for H.C.R.K. Bhuiyan Firm from Irfan Ali Laskar, the predecessor of the plaintiffs? ii. Whether there is any relationship of landlords and tenants in between the plaintiffs and the defendants? iii. Whether Girish Ch. Bhuiyan surrendered the possession of the tenancy land in the year 1953 to the landlords? iv. Whether plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property since 1953 and were dispossessed by the defendants on 14.08.02 (at night)? v. What relief/reliefs plaintiffs are entitled to? 10. During the trial, the plaintiffs examined 2 witnesses and 11 numbers of documents were exhibited. The defendants examined three witnesses and exhibited 16 numbers of documents. 11. On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial court partly decreed the suit declaring only the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the suit land. 12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 13. In this case, it is an admitted fact that Irfan Ali Laskar died on 23.07.1955. His son Abdul Monnan Laskar was made proforma defendant in the suit. Abdul Monnan Laskar is a resident of London in the United Kingdom. Being a son of late Irfan Ali Laskar, he also has a share in the suit property. Similarly, Hayatun Nessa, being the daughter of Irfan Ali Laskar, is a citizen of Dhaka in Bangladesh. Sri Rejaul Rezzak Laskar, the son late Abdul Razzak Laskar (the son of Irfan Ali Laskar) is also a citizen of Bangladesh. They also have shares in the suit property. 14. Similarly, Hayatun Nessa, being the daughter of Irfan Ali Laskar, is a citizen of Dhaka in Bangladesh. Sri Rejaul Rezzak Laskar, the son late Abdul Razzak Laskar (the son of Irfan Ali Laskar) is also a citizen of Bangladesh. They also have shares in the suit property. 14. Now, the only point for determination in this appeal is as to whether notices upon these people from United Kingdom and Bangladesh were served or not? 15. The plaintiffs of the suit are sons of late Abdul Wahab Laskar, late Abdul Matin Laskar and other legal heirs. The plaintiffs have prayed for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit land and for recovery of the vacation possession of the same. 16. I have already mentioned hereinbefore that Abdul Monnan Laskar, Hayatun Nessa being the son and daughter of late Irfan Ali Laskar also have their shares in the suit land. Rejaul Rezzak Laskar, being the son of Abdul Rezzak Laskar (son of Irfan Ali Laskar) also has share in the suit property. 17. The sons of late Abdul Wahab Laskar, late Abdul Matin Laskar and their other legal heirs without Abdul Monnan Laskar, Hayatun Nessa and Rejaul Rezzak Laskar cannot claim declaration of only their right, title and interest over the suit land because admittedly Abdul Monnan Laskar, Hayatun Nessa and Rejaul Rezzak Laskar also have shares in the suit property. 18. There is no evidence in this record that notices upon Abdul Monnan Laskar, Hayatun Nessa and Rejaul Rezzak Laskar were ever served. So, now the present situation is that Abdul Monnan Laskar, Hayatun Nessa and Rejaul Rezzak Laskar do not have any knowledge about institution of the suit by the sons of late Abdul Wahab Laskar, late Abdul Matin Laskar and their other legal heirs. 19. Only the sons of late Abdul Wahab Laskar, late Abdul Matin Laskar and their other legal heirs cannot pray for declaration of only their right, title and interest over the suit land without the presence of Abdul Monnan Laskar, Hayatun Nessa and Rejaul Rezzak Laskar because admittedly they also have shares in the suit land. 20. The plaintiffs being the appellants in this appeal alone cannot seek any declaration without Abdul Monnan Laskar, Hayatun Nessa and Rejaul Rezzak Laskar. 20. The plaintiffs being the appellants in this appeal alone cannot seek any declaration without Abdul Monnan Laskar, Hayatun Nessa and Rejaul Rezzak Laskar. This Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court has committed an error by declaring the right, title and interest of only the appellants over the suit land without hearing Abdul Monnan Laskar, Hayatun Nessa and Rejaul Rezzak Laskar. 21. For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment of the trial court is bad in law and is therefore set aside accordingly. 22. Under the aforesaid premised reasons, the case is remanded to the trial court of learned District Judge, Hailakandi for serving notice upon Abdul Monnan Laskar, Hayatun Nessa and Rejaul Rezzak Laskar. After service of notice and after hearing them, if they contest after receiving notice, the trial court shall pass a fresh judgment on all issues. Send back the LCR.