RSA 24/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Jorhat in Title Appeal N o.41/2006 dismissing the said appeal filed by the present appellant and upholdin g the judgment and order dated 12.05.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sen ior Division), Jorhat in Title Suit No.4/1997 dismissing the suit. Heard Mr. N. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, the learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 . The present appellant instituted the said suit praying for the following decree: 1. That it be declared: (a) that Smt. Sunity Mazumdar, the defendant No.1, Smt. Amiyabala Shome, the defendant No.2 and Smt. Parul Seal, the defendant No.3 did not and are not acqu iring any right, title and interest, as heirs of late Sitanath Shome, to transfe r the Schedule ’B’ properties, conferring any right, title and interest on the a lleged vendee Sri Nirmal Baidya, the defendant No.4. (b) that, the alleged sale deed said to be executed by Smt. Sunity Mazumdar, Smt. Amiyabala Shome, and Smt. Parul Seal, the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 in favo ur of Sri Nirmal Baidya, the defendant No.4 is null and void ab-initio, inoperat ive and invalid in law and liable to be cancelled. (c) that Smt. Amiyabala Shome and her second daughter Smt. Parul Seal got th eir due shares of properties and none of them had/has any further claim to the r emaining Sitanath Shome’s Schedule ’B’ properties at Gar-ali, Jorhat town by rig ht of inheritance or otherwise. (d) that, Smt. Sunity Mazumdar, the defendant No.1 shall succeed Sitanath Sh ome’s Schedule ’B’ properties at Gar-Ali, Jorhat town, as a testamentary heir in case the ’Will’ so executed by her father in her favour and in connection with which probate-proceeding No.198/ 87 is pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the original side, is probated and in no other case she is entitled to claim the Schedule ’B’ properties or any share/shares in that properties as a n intestate heir of late Sitanath Shome. (e) that Smt. Amiyabala Shome, Smt. Parul Seal and Smt. Sunity Mazumdar will fully and purposely, suppressed material facts that Sitanath Shome bequeathed hi s schedule ’B’ properties in favour of his daughter Smt. Sunity Mazumdar and tha t a probate/proceeding numbered 198/87 is pending before the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta in the original side and manipulated to have their names recorded/caus ed to be recorded vide S.D.C.’s order dated 31.12.93 in M.C. No.70/93-94 in resp ect of 1 Katha 12 Lochas of land of dag No.4692 (new) and P.P. No.164 (new), Blo ck No.2, Jorhat town after lapse of 6(six) years or so after death of Sitanath S home, just as a prelude to dispose of the said land in Schedule ’B’ and no such sale deed merely based on such mutation, stands and is sustainable in law. 2. That the sale deed so executed by the defendants 1, 2 and 3, as heirs of late Sitanath Shome in favour of the defendant No.4 be adjudged null and void a nd cancelled in respect of the Schedule ’A’ property, with direction to the Sub Registrar, Jorhat to make necessary endorsement in the particular document as co ntained in the Register of execution and registration of documents of his office . 3. That a permanent injunction by a decree of the court, be granted restrai ning the defendant No.1, 2, 3 and 4 from dealing with suit-property in schedule ’A’, encumbering it in any way/manner by themselves, their agents and/or any per son/persons acting through or under them or any one or more of them. 4. That the costs of the suit be decreed. 5. That any other relief/reliefs as that may be deemed just and proper by t he court be also decreed. It appears from the pleadings in the plaint that the plaintiff has admit ted to be a tenant originally under Smt. Sunity Mazumdar, the defendant No.1. Th e plaintiff in the suit has not claimed any relief in his favour, but has filed the suit claiming relief on behalf of other persons and the other persons have n ot filed any suit for declaration of their right, title and interest as well as for cancellation of sale deed, which is basically the prayer in the plaint filed . The plaintiffs have not shown existence of any civil rights and also hav e not claimed any of such right. The learned court below by order dated 12.05.20 00 rightly rejected the plaint on the ground of having no cause of action, under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the plaint having not disclosed the same. The pla intiffs in fact filed the suit in proxy for others, without claiming any decree claiming any of their rights. Such a suit is vexatious and to be nipped in bud. Against the said order of rejection of the plaint though the present appellant p referred Title Appeal No.41/ 2006, the same has also been dismissed by the learn ed District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 25.04.2008. Keeping in view the prayer made in the plaint as well as the aforesaid d iscussion, I am of the view that the learned courts below have rightly rejected the plaint. No substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal and hence the appeal stands dismissed. No cost.