Genealogical claims in property disputes must be evidenced to be valid; mere assertion is insufficient, and suits for declaration require concurrent possession claims if plaintiffs lack possession.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

The 2nd appeal has been preferred against the reversing judgment.

2. The appellants in this 2^nd appeal were the plaintiffs before the learned trial court in the suit vide C.S. No.33 of 2002 and the respondent nos.1 to 6 before the learned 1^st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide RFA No.05/18 of 2006.

The respondent no.1 in this 2^nd appeal was the defendant no.1 before the learned 1^st appellate court in the suit vide C.S. No.33 of 2002 and the appellant before the learned 1^st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide RFA No.05/18 of 2006.

The respondent nos.2 to 4 in this 2^nd appeal were the defendants nos.2 to 4 in the suit vide C.S. No.33 of 2002 and respondent nos.7 to 9 before the learned 1^st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide RFA No.05/18 of 2006.

3. The suit of the plaintiffs(appellants in this 2^nd appeal) vide C.S. No.33 of 2002 was a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession.

As per the case of the plaintiffs, they (plaintiffs) and proforma defendant nos.2 to 4 are the members of Schedule Tribe community and they belong to one family and their common ancestor was Dhruba Muchu. Dhurba Muchu died leaving behind his six sons, i.e., Bairag, Jhankar, Bariha, Jaysa, Khageswar and Dhanurja.

Bairag died leaving behind his two sons, i.e., Kunja and Dingara(plaintiff no.2).

Kunja died leaving behind his widow Dhanmati(plaintiff no.1).

The 2^nd and 3^rd son of Dhurba Muchu, i.e., Jhankar and Bariha died issueless.

The 4^th son of Dhurba Muchu, i.e., Jaysa Muchu died leaving behind his four sons, i.e., Kubera(defendant no.2), Parikhita(plaintiff no.3), Rudra(defendant no.3) and Prasad(plaintiff no.4).

The 5^th son of Dhurba Muchu, i.e., Khageswar Muchu died leaving behind his son Mangulu Muchu(defendant no.4)

The 6^th son of Dhurba Muchu, i.e., Dhanarja Muchu died leaving behind his two sons, i.e., Makaradhwaja Muchu(plaintiff no.5) and Biranchi Muchu(plaintiff no.6).

4. In order to have a better appreciation and so also for an easy understanding about the family pedigree of the plaintiff and defendants, their genealogy as stated above, is depicted hereunder for an instant reference:-

5 According to the plaintiffs, defendant no.1 Narayan Samini @ Muchu son of Chandrasekhar Samini@Muchu is in no way related to the family of the plaintiffs and proforma defendant no.2 to 4. He (defendant no.1) is a stranger to their family.

The grand-father of the defendant no.1, i.e., Brusabha Samini had come to their village from an another village and he(Brusabha Samini) was working as a field servant under their common ancestor Dhurba Muchu.

Dhurba Muchu was the only son of his father Harihar Muchu. The said Dhurba Muchu was possessing A.18.10 decimals of land being the owner thereof and the RoR of the same was published in his name exclusively in the last Hamid Settlement.

Their common ancestor Dhurba Muchu died in or about 1948 leaving behind his widow and sons as described in the genealogy and after the death of their common ancestor Dhurba Muchu, his sons had mutated the properties to their names in the year 1949-50 paying rent to the Government.

6. The 1^st son of Bairag Muchu sold some acres of land out of A.18.10 decimals properties to different persons executing different sale deeds as reflected in Para No.4 of the plaint.

7. In the last major settlement, A.10.09 decimals land were recorded in the names of the plaintiffs and proforma defendant nos.2 to 4, in respect of which they are paying rents.

8. They(plaintiffs and proforma defendant nos.2 to 4) are illiterate and Adibasies, nei