action for the suit? The issue No.3 is whether the suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties. It is seen that no authority has been cited on the point that without deciding whether the defendant had encroached on the suit land, the issues relating to cause of action and issue of non- joinder of necessary parties cannot be taken up. Therefore, in the absence of any authoritative pronouncement of any judgment in this regard, the decision by the learned Courts below cannot be set aside merely because one issue was decided prior to deciding another issue. As a second appellate Court, the Court can only appreciate whether by deciding issues No.1 and 3 before deciding the issue No.5, the appellants had suffered any prejudice. In this regard, it is seen that the PW-5, had admitted that his brother Nomal Keot was also one of the co-owners of the suit land. The appellants had not exhibited any written instrument of transfer, whether it is deed of relinquishment or be it a sale deed. The appellants were seeking declaration of their title. However, there is no evidence or explanation of any sort by the appellants on record to show why the presence of Nomal Keot was not necessary to decide the title of the appellants. In the considered opinion of the Court, in order to decide title of one, the consequential implication would be that the title of someone must extinguish and this was not possible in the absence of the said co-owner. The only source of claiming title by the appellants was entry in land revenue records, but no case law or statutory provision could be placed by the learned counsel for the appellant to show that entry made in the revenue records conferred any title over the landed property by ignoring the provisions of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. Thus, if a valid transfer of title over the suit land is not proved in accordance with law by examining a written and registered deed, no amount of evidence can be appreciated on the point in view of the bar created by virtue of the provisions of Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. Thus, the considered conclusion of the Court is that the suit was bad for non-joinder of Nomal Keot as a necessary party and that in order to declare right, title and interest of the appellants over the suit land, the presence of original owner i.e. Nomal Keot and Bhola Keot was necessary and in this regard. Moreover, without declaring title, the appellants would not derive right, title and interest over the suit land to successfully eject the respondent because this was not a case filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 where the Courts need not go into the title of the plaintiff and suit can be decided only on the basis of possession alone. Thus, the appellants are not found to have suffered any prejudice by the action of the learned
