JUDGMENT:- This second appeal by the plaintiff of the original suit who was unsuccessful both in the trial court and in the appellate court below.

2. In this appeal the only question which requires consideration is whether or not the appellant had title to the disputed properties which were purchased from the sister of one Tarakali, who was the original owner of the properties to extent of one-third share in respect Ka schedule land and also the owner of the Kha schedule properties. The allegation of the plaintiff Chandi Charan Naskar is that Tarakali died leaving only one son Satya, who also became untraced for about 12 or 13 years. As the whereabouts of Satya Charan were not known, he was presumed to be dead and the plaintiff purchased the property from his sister, who was the limited heiress of Tarakali and subsequently he also purchased Kha schedule property in the benam of defendant No. 5. The suit was for declaration of the plaintiffs title to the suit properties and also for recovery of possession as according to the allegation of the plaintiff he was dispossessed by the defendant No. 4. There was an alternative prayer for partition as some of the defendants were co-