Birendra Kumar, J.

1 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This is plaintiff's appeal. Original plaintiff-Chitrakut Tiwary had brought T.S.No.122 of 1985/93 of 1988 against the sole respondent-Ram Chandra Rai for relief of permanent injunction against the respondent to restrain from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff-appellant over the suit land. The plaintiff has lost before both the learned courts below.

3. Before referring to the case and claim of the parties, it would be apt to have a glance at the genealogy of the family of the plaintiff and the vendors of the defendant.

		Manu Tiwary
Mahadev Tiwary					Chatter Tiwary
Lakshman Tiwary				Bakishan Tiwary		Ghan Shyam Tiwary
Jangi Tiwary	Balmukand Tiwary Died Issueless		Ramdev Tiwary Died Issueless	Suraj Tiwary (Wife-Besara Devi)		Ram Avtar Tiwary (Wife -Sulwshra Kuer)
Chitrakut Tiwary (Original Plaintiff- Appellant)				Son Ram Bhawan Tiwary		Son Chandra Bhushan Tiwary
Son- Birendra Tiwary (Substituted As Appellant)				Vendors Of The Defendant.

4. The case and claim of the plaintiff in brief is that ancestor Manu Tiwary had two sons Mahadeo Tiwary and Chatter Tiwary. After death of Manu Tiwary, Mahadeo Tiwary and Chatter Tiwary divided the joint family property by metes and bounds, prior to the cad astral survey save and except the orchards, which remained joint. The plaintiff belongs to the branch of Mahadeo Tiwary and the vendors of the defendant-respondent belongs to the branch of Chatter Tiwary. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property which was allotted in partition to the ancestor of the plaintiff. The vendors of the defendants, namely, Chandra Bhushan Tiwary and Ram Bhawan Tiwary had no transferable right in respect of the suit land and they executed two registered sale deeds dated 22.08.1985 in favour of the defendant and on that basis, defendant was attempting to dispossess the plaintiff-appellant.

5. The defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiff by filing written statement mainly on the ground that the family of Mahadeo Tiwary and Chatter Tiwary never partitioned their property by metes and bounds rather there was unity of title and possession amongst their descendants. However, for convenience, the parties were cultivating the joint family property separately and at the time of purchase, the vendors of the defendant respondent were in possession and after transfer, the defendant was put in possession of the suit land.

6. The learned trial court considered two important issues; whether there was partition by metes and bounds between Mahadeo Tiwary and Chatter Tiwary and second issue whether the plaintiff had perfected his title by adverse possession on the suit land. The learned trial court disbelieved to the plaintiff's witnesses on partition and separate possession of the plaintiff on the suit land for the reason mentioned in the trial court judgment and relied on the witnesses of the defendant-respondents. The learned trial court though referred to the documentary evidences produced on the record, however, did not consider the same without any reason thereto. The learned trial court further rejected the claim of the plaintiff of acquisition of title by adverse possession on the ground that since the suit property was joint family property, there was no question of adverse possession of one of the cosharers. Accordingly, the learned trial court held that the plaintiff-appellant is not entitled for permanent injunction and the suit was dismissed.

7. The learned lower appellate court concurred with the view of the learned trial court that witnesses of the plaintiff were not reliable and acceptable and witnesses of the defendant were reliable and acceptable. The