The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Hindu Succession Act, particularly Section 15, in determining the devolution of property and rights of inheritance.

KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.D. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the appellants, as well as Mr. B.D. Das, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. H.K. Sarma, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC for short), is preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 17.05.2012, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Goalpara in Title Suit No. 5/2009.

3. Be it mentioned that during the pendency of this appeal, the appellant No. 1 namely, Jaibendu Jyoti Patgiri had died and a such, his wife who was already impleaded as Appellant No. 2 and his daughter's name were impleaed as substituted appellants. Nonetheless, for the sake of clarity, it is mentioned that any reference to appellant No. 1 in this order would mean Jaibendu Jyoti Patgiri, the appellant No. 1.

4. The respondents are the plaintiffs in TS No. 5/2009, which was filed for eviction, mesne profits and compensation. Bereft of unnecessary particulars, the case of the respondents in the plaint in brief is that the land measuring 1 bigha - 0 katha - 5 lecha described in Schedule-A of the plaint was initially owned and possessed by Jitendra Narayan Choudhury, who was the predecessor of the respondents. On his death, the said land was inherited by his nine legal heirs, i.e. wife, 4 sons and 4 daughters, including the respondents. It was claimed that the wife of the landowner, namely, Usha Rani Choudhury, i.e. the mother of the respondents had constructed all structures standing on the said land and that she had also died on 25.01.1998 and the remaining 8 legal heirs inherited 1/8th share in the said land, measuring 131/8 lechas (131/8L). It was portrayed by the respondents that Khanindra Nath Choudhury, one of their brothers had brought his paternal aunt to live with him as his wife. So, the mother of the respondents had shifted to an old house with her unmarried daughter. Ultimately, Khanindra Nath Choudhury purchased 2 katha - 5 lecha land (katha and lecha is hereinafter referred to as ‘K’ and ‘L’ for short) vide Sale Deed bearing Registered Deed No. 2004 dated 07.10.1986 and had constructed his own dwelling house, but he could not shift to the said house as he became ill and died issueless on 17.08.2001 in the house standing on the suit land. On his death, Gitika Choudhury inherited her husband’s estate, including 2K-5L and 131/8L land. However, the suit land described in Schedule-B of the plaint measuring 1K-10L was gifted by their brother, Khanindra Nath Choudhury, to his wife, Gitika Choudhury by executing a will on 18.05.2001 and registering the same on 21.05.2001. During the lifetime of Khanindra Nath Choudhury, he and his wife Gitika had kept the appellant No. 1 to serve and help them in their domestic works. He was provided education and allowed him to marry appellant No. 2 and to live in the suit premises, to which the respondents had consented. Upon the death of Khanindra Nath Choudhury, the respondent No. 1 had instituted a probate proceeding, which was converted to suit and numbered as T.S. (P) No. 12/2006. During the pendency of the suit, Gitika Choudhury had died on 03.04.2009, as such, the suit was dismissed on withdrawal. On 06.04.2009, the respondents asked the appellants to vacate the suit premises by keeping intact all the furniture and articles of Khanindra Nath Choudhury and his wife Gitika Choudhury, but they did not vacate and denied the title of the respondents. Hence, after serving Advocate’s notice dated 21.04.2009 on 25.04.2009, the suit was filed. It was stated that Abhijit Deka, son of their late sister, Arati Choudhury was not interested in the matter and, as such, the suit was also filed on his behalf. It was stated that the cause of action for the suit arose on 06.04.2009 and 25.04.2009 and the suit was filed.

5. The appellants contested the suit by filing their joint written statement. Bereft of unnecessary particulars, it was stated that the