This second appeal is against the judgment and decree passed in Title Appeal No.13 of 2006 by learned 20th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, whereby he has dismissed the appellant's appeal and upheld the judgment and decree passed in Partition Suit No.25 of 1999 by learned Sub JudgeI, Khunti.

2. The appellant was the plaintiff no.1. He along with his brother Sohan Munda (proforma respondent) filed said partition suit against the defendants in the court of learned Subordinate Judge, Khunti, claiming share in the suit property, described in the schedule appended to the plaint.

3. The plaintiff's case was that the suit property, appertaining to Khata No.6 of village Bagru, P.S. Khunti, District Ranchi was recorded in the name of Karam Singh Munda and Sukhram Munda, both sons of Ratan Munda, having one share and Turi Mundabrother of Sukhram Munda, having equal share. However, it was specifically mentioned that Turi Munda went to Assam. The plaintiff claimed to be the descendant of Turi Munda. Further case of the plaintiff was that alias name of Turi Munda was Suri Munda and the said alias name was recorded in Khata no.65 of village Bagru. The said land of village Bagru was also an item of the suit property. Further case of the plaintiff was that though he had got half share in the property, the entire land is being cultivated by the defendants. Hence the necessity of the suit.

4. The defendants appeared and contested the suit. It was stated, inter alia, that the plaintiffs are stranger to the family. There is no unity of title and possession between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The plaintiffs have no cause of action for the suit. It has been further stated that the plaintiffs are not even the residents of village where the suit lands are situated. They are residents of village Totada, P.S. Khunti, District Ranchi and they have absolutely no concern with the village Bagru. The plaintiff invented a story and have given alias name of Turi Munda as Suri Munda in order to show their connection with the family of the defendants. Turi Munda had left for Assam long ago and was unheard of. He never returned to the native village. He has no alias name as Suri Munda. The plaintiff's suit is, thus, frivolous and is liable to be dismissed.

5. On the basis of the said pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court framed several issues.

6. After thorough discussion and appraisal of the facts and evidences on record, learned Trial Court decided almost all the issues against the plaintiffs, holding that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove their case, as pleaded in the plaint. There was no unity of title and possession between the parties. There was a defect of nonjoinder of parties and the plaintiffs have no valid cause of action for the suit. Learned Trial Court, thus, held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief, as prayed for, and dismissed the suit.

7. The plaintiffs preferred appeal against the said judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court in the Court of learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, being Title Appeal no.13 of 2006. The said appeal was finally heard and disposed of by learned the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi.

8. Learned Lower Appellate Court having heard the parties, discussed the evidences and considered the grounds taken by the appellant. After scrutinizing the evidence, learned Lower Appellate Court recorded its own independent findings and held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove unity of title and possession between the parties with respect to the suit land. The suit is also bad for nonjoinder of necessary party and the plaintiffs have no cause of action and the partition suit filed by them is not maintainable. Learned Lower Appellate Court, thus, concurred with the findings of fact arrived at by the learned Trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

9. In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the findings of the learned Lower Appellate Court on the sole ground