JUDGMENT :

Sugato Majumdar, J.

1. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellants and submits, though the appeal was heard in relation to its admission, on 30th September, 2021, thereafter he received information that appellant no.5 and respondent no. 1 died respectively on 23rd August, 2021 and 30th October, 2020. He submits further, he has not been able to locate any authority that bars a Court from deciding on claims of title in absence of title documents. We have heard this submission of Mr. Bhattacharya. We are of considered opinion that fate of admission hearing of the instant second appeal would in no way impair or prejudice the interests of the parties or persons claiming under them, since we are of the view no question of law is involved in the appeal. We give below reasons for our view.

2. The instant second appeal is preferred against the appellate judgment and decree dated 12.03.2015 passed in Title Appeal No. 119of 2013 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Additional Court at Purulia, whereby, the Learned First Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondents/plaintiffs and passed decree of declaration of title and possession of the respondents/plaintiffs in respect of the suit property along with decree of permanent injunction against the present appellants/defendants.

3. The respondents/plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No. 2 of 2004 praying for a decree of declaration of title in respect of the suit property; confirmation of possession of the same as well as decree for permanent injunction against the appellants/defendants, restraining them from disturbing the peaceful possession of the respondents/plaintiffs. The learned Trial Court dismissed the suit on merit. The respondents/plaintiffs preferred first appeal. The First Appellate Court remanded the suit to the learned Trial Court with direction to record evidence on acquisition of the suit property by the respondents/plaintiffs and to decide the suit afresh.

4. The learned Trial Court again dismissed the suit on merit against which the respondents/plaintiffs again preferred an appeal.

5. The Appellate Court set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court and passed decree of declaration that the respondents/plaintiffs have title and possession of the suit property along with decree of permanent injunction against the appellants/defendants restraining them from disturbing the peaceful possession of the respondents/plaintiffs without due process of law. The instant second appeal is preferred against the said appellate judgment and decree.

6. The respondents/plaintiffs case, as appears from the judgments of both the courts, is that they are sons of one Banamali Dhibar and are in possession of the suit property by rearing and catching fish and paying rent. R.S. Plot No. 9988 under R.S. Khatian No. 9942, being suit properties,also belongs to the respondents/plaintiffs. The respondents/plaintiffs Nos. 3,4 and 5 are running a business of coal depot in a suit property. It was alleged by the respondents/plaintiffs that the appellants/defendants being sons of one Tarapada Dhibar threatened the respondents/plaintiffs with forcible dispossession from the suit property, casting clouds on their title and endangering their possession.

7. While contesting the suit, the appellants/defendants, in the written statement, denied right title and interest of the respondents/plaintiffs in respect of the suit property. Possession of the respondents/plaintiffs was also denied. Appellants/defendants set up their rival title in respect of the suit property and averred, along with others, that entries made in Record of rights in the name of Banamali Dhibar, from whom the respondents/plaintiffs derived title, is erroneous.

8. Various title deeds were produced by both the parties at trial to substantiate their respective cases. After remand the respondents/plaintiffs adduced additional documentary evidences which were marked as Exhibit Nos. 4 to 7