Arup Kumar Goswami, J.
1. Heard Mr. M. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.R. Bhattacharjee, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent. Hearing having not been concluded on 09.06.2015, it was resumed to-day.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 04.06.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) No. 1, Cachar, Silchar, dismissing the appeal, and upholding the judgment of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No. 2, Cachar, Silchar, in Title Suit No. 195/ 1984.
3. The learned trial court dismissed the suit of the appellant holding that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The learned lower Appellate Court, while affirming the said judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court, also held that there was no cause of action for filing a suit.
4. On 29.11.2004, the second appeal was admitted to the heard on the following substantial question of law:--
"Whether the suit can be dismissed on the line of non joinder of necessary parties under Order 1 Rule 9 CPC?"
5. Subsequently, when the matter was taken up for final hearing, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, on 09.06.2015, one more substantial question of law was framed, which is to the following effect:--
"Whether the learned lower Appellate Court is justified in holding that there was no cause of action for filing of the suit?"
6. The predecessor of the plaintiff and defendant was one Paranmoni Nath. Apart from the plaintiff Samar Krishna Nath and the defendant Amarendera Nath, Paranmoni Nath had one more son, namely, Ramkrishna Nath and 2 daughters, namely, Chanchala and Chapala. Wife of Paranmoni Nath is Charubala. Paranmoni Nath executed a Will on 03.10.1962 and the plaintiff was appointed the executor. Paranmoni died on 16.06.1968. Plaintiff instituted a Title Suit No. 7/1970 for getting probate of the Will, which was disposed of on 24.02.1973.
7. In the plaint, it is stated that by virtue of the Will, the plaintiff is entitled to half of 5 Bigha 8 Katha 5 Chatak of land, which is homestead land, apart from other landed properties. The case set out in the plaint was that the defendant was collecting materials for construction of the house in the Schedule-2 land measuring 25 cubits x 14 cubits and the cause of action arose on 24.10.1984 when such an attempt was made by the defendant to construct the house. Schedule-1 is an area containing 5 Bigha 8 Katha 5 Chatak in Dag No. 347 of second R.S. Patta No. 121 of Mouza- Dudhpatil Part-V. The plaintiff filed the suit for right, title and interest in respect of half of the Schedule 1 land and delivery of khas possession of Schedule 2 land and permanent injunction.
8. In the written statement filed, apart from usual legal pleas, such as the suit is barred by limitation, waiver and acquiescence, it was pleaded that there is no cause of action against the defendant and that the suit was also not maintainable for not impleading the co-sharers of the patta, as also the mother and the other brother of the plaintiff. The allegation that the defendant is trying to construct the house as stated in the plaint was denied. It was pleaded that Paranmoni Nath''s father was Binoy Nath, who had 2 brothers, namely, Sibaprasad Nath and Kinoy Nath and they were also residing in the suit land by constructing houses. It was asserted that there were co-sharers in the suit patta and without partition, the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. It was also highlighted that the Will did not mention about any Dag or area. It is stated that the father of the plaintiff had gifted an area of 13 Katha by a registered Deed of Gift dated 12.04.1960 in favour of the Government for digging a pond for drinking water purpose of the villagers.
9. The substituted defendant Nos. 1 (Ka) to 1 (Gha) also filed a written statement contending, amongst others, that due to non-substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased defendant within the prescribed period of time, the suit had abated. While generally following the written statement filed by their predecessor, it was stated that the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, Silchar in a mutation case, allowed mutation in favour of the plaintiff to the extent of 15 Katha 15 Chatak 14 Gonda. An additional written statement was filed stating that in respect of Dag No. 347, the area of land remaining in the name of Paranmoni Nath was only 1 Bigha 12 Katha 15 Chatak and 14 Gonda and that he had total land measuring 4 Bigha 11 Katha 3 Chatak 14 Gonda in Dag No. 347, 356, 357 and 358. According to the Will, the plaintiff is entitled to only 16 Katha 7 Chatak and 17 Gonda of land in Dag No. 347. It is also pleaded that the defendants had also mutation in respect of their share of land measuring 16 Katha 7 Chatak 17 Gonda. Yet another additional written statement came to be filed stating that the plaintiff and the defendants are possessing Schedule 1 land in ejmali, as recorded by the Amin Commissioner.
10. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed:--
"1. Has the plaintiff any cause of action?
2. Is the suit maintainable ?
3. Is the a legation of the construction of house true ?
4. Is the description of the suit land correct ?
5. Is the suit bad for non joinder of necessary parties ?
6. Has the suit abated due to non substitution of the legal heirs of late Amarendra Nath.
7. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to ?
8. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?
9. Whether the plaintiff has right title, interest over the suit land ?
10. Is the suit land identifiable ?"
11. The plaintiff examined 2 witnesses. Defendant also examined 1 witness, who is the son of the defendant Amarandra Nath.
12. The outcome of the suit and the appeal is already noticed.
13. Mr. M. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned lower Appellate Court was wholly wrong in holding that there was no cause of action for filing of the suit, inasmuch as, the plaintiff in the plaint asserted that the defendant was trying to illegally raise construction in the land of the plaintiff, for which, he had also sought for declaration of right, title and interest. It is submitted by him that it is another matter whether the plaintiff is entitled to prove his case and in that perspective, the finding of the learned lower Appellate Court is required to be interfered with, he submits.
14. Will of the father of the plaintiff having been probated, Mr. Singh relies upon Section 41 of the Evidence Act to contend that the plaintiff has right, title and interest in respect of the suit land. Mr. Singh submits that a final judgment of the competent court in exercise of probate jurisdiction is a judgment in rem and therefore, it is not necessary for the pattadars to be made party to the proceedings. It is submitted by him that in case the pattadars were aggrieved, it was for them to have challenged the judgment of the probate proceedings. Therefore, the learned courts below committed grave error of law in holding that the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of co-sharers of the patta in question. Accordingly, he submits that impugned judgments of the learned courts below are liable to be interfered with and the matter is to be remanded back to the learned Appellate Court for fresh adjudication.
15. Per contra, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the Will is not disputed and cannot be disputed once probate had been granted. It is, however, contended by him that though in the Will with regard to the homestead land no area was mentioned, decree of the Probate Court indicates that schedule of the property in Dag No. 347 in second R.S. Patta No. 121 is 5 Bigha approximately excluding 13 Katha for the pond. It is submitted by him that in the probate proceeding, no question arose for determination of the right, title and interest of the testator and therefore, in order to be a judgment in rem binding of the world in respect of title, there must be a finding with regard to the title of the testator. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent submits that it is admitted by the plaintiff in his cross-examination, which is also taken note of the learned courts below, that there are other pattadars in the suit dag and patta and the shares of the different pattadars had not been partitioned. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the learned Senior Counsel submits that argument of Mr. Singh based on Section 41 of the Evidence Act is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
16. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record.
17. Let me first take up the substantial question of law formulated on 09.06.2015. I find substance in the argument of Mr. Singh that the learned lower Appellate Court was wrong in holding that there was no cause of action. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, learned Lower Appellate Court took into consideration the fact that the plaintiff, in his evidence, failed to state when he was dispossessed or when the alleged construction was sought to be made by the defendant.
18. A cause of action means every fact, which, if traversed, would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the court. It is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly accrue. In the instant case, the plaintiff based his suit on the basis of the Will of his father and the probate proceedings with the allegation that the defendant is trying to make unauthorized construction in his land. Failure to prove overt actions or to prove the case is not synonymous with lack of cause of action. Accordingly, the substantial question of law relating to cause of action is answered in favour of the appellant.
19. In his evidence as PW-1, the plaintiff had stated that he had no other document except the probate judgment to show the extent of interest of his father over the suit land. It is further stated by him that no partition was effected between the share holders of the suit patta. The Will, Ext-3, amongst others, recited that the eldest son of testator, Amarendra Nath i.e. the defendant, youngest son Ramkrishna Nath and wife Charubala will receive 50 percent in the western side of the residential house and the Will recites that apart from the properties which are bequeathed to the aforesaid sons, wife and daughters, Chanchala and Chapala (they are also given plots of land in different areas), all other properties would vest in the plaintiff. In the Will, though many parcels of properties are bequeathed, no particulars with reference to dag number and patta number etc. are given. In the decree of the Testamentary Suit No. 7/1970, Ext-2, there is only one Schedule, which is in respect of Dag No. 347 and it has an area of 5 Bigha approximately excluding an area of 13 Katha in the said patta, whereupon, a pond was excavated.
20. In the Testamentary Suit No. 7/1970, 4(four) issues were framed, which are as follows:--
"(1) Is the application for probate legal, proper and maintainable ?
(2) Is the court competent to grant probate on the alleged Will of Paranmoni Nath ?
(3) Was the testator Paranmoni Nath mentally and physically fit at the time of making the alleged Will?
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to probate of the alleged Will?"
21. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the probate Court held that the Will in question was the last Will of the testator who had the testamentary capacity at the time of making of the Will and he had consciously disposed of his properties.
22. The schedule of the decree in Ext.2 refers to 5 Bigha approximately, whereas the Schedule-1 of the plaint refers to 5 Bigha 8 Katha and 5 Chatak of land. There is no explanation in the plaint on what basis the area is quantified as 5 Bigha 8 Katha 5 Chatak. The learned trial Court, however, found from Ext-5 and Ext-A, certified copies of Jamabandi of suit patta, that suit Dag No. 347 comprises a total area of 5 Bigha 8 Katha 5 Chatak of land. Apparently, the entire land measuring 5 Bigha 8 Katha 5 Chatak in Dag No. 347 is included in the Schedule-1 land. It bears repetition to mention that the Will did not indicate any area, not even dag number, on which the residential house stood. The learned courts below found from Ext-5 and Ext-A that there are other co-sharers in the said dag and patta. While the plaintiff himself admitted that there was no partition, it appears that the testator had gifted 13 Katha of land with specified boundary. How it was done is not appearing from the evidence on record as in absence of a partition, specified portion of land could not have been transferred. If there was any understanding in between the parties or the co-sharers, the same is not brought on record. Given the nature of the Will, it will be essential to first find out the share of Paranmoni Nath in the suit dag and patta and to identify his share by specific area. On the evidence on record, learned courts below recorded that many persons were in possession in Dag No. 347.
23. I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. Singh that Ext-2 is a conclusive proof of entitlement of the plaintiff to half of 5 Bigha 8 Katha 5 Chatak of land in Dag No. 347. No doubt, judgment in probate jurisdiction is a judgment in rem and judgment in rem furnishes conclusive proof of the facts of adjudication against parties as well as strangers, subject to certain exceptions. It is already noted what was adjudicated in the probate proceeding. All that is essential to the decision that the executor was entitled to the probate, is to be taken as a conclusive determination. The right, title and interest of the testator in respect of properties sought to be bequeathed was not an issue and therefore, in the circumstances, the judgment in the probate proceeding in the instant case would be a judgment in rem only with regard to genuineness of the Will, its due execution, attestation, etc. In that view of the matter, when the plaintiff bases his claim only on Ext-2, without independently asserting the right, title and interest of the testator in the property sought to be bequeathed, it is necessary and essential that all the parties are brought on record. Admittedly, land in suit patta and dag was not partitioned amongst the co-sharers. They, in the facts and circumstances of the case, are necessary parties.
24. Under Order 1 Rule 9 CPC, a suit can be defeated by reason of non-joinder of a necessary party. In view of the above conclusions, I am of the considered opinion that the judgments of the learned courts below do not require any interference in this second appeal and consequently, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
25. Registry will send back the records.
