Title claims must be substantiated by formal legal documentation and cannot rely solely on historical assertions.

1. This is plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment of affirmance.

2. Plaintiff filed the suit for adjudication of right, title and interest and for delivery of Khas possession of the suit property as detailed in the schedule.

3. Parties shall be referred to by their original placement and will include their heirs and legal representatives substituted at different stages.

4. CASE OF PLAINTIFF

Suit property is detailed in the schedule of the plaint, as partly pucca and kachha house and structures over plot no.1393 corresponding to R.S Plot no.39 District - Ranchi measuring 13 decimals. M.S Plot no.1393 is contiguous to plot no.1397 and the two plots jointly comprise a campus denoted as Holding no.422.There are two houses in the said holding one is on plot no.1393 and another is on 1397. Ingress and egress to plot no.1393 is through 1397 and there is no other alternative passage. Passage through plot no.1397 was purchased by Fateh Mohammed through registered sale deed no.8396 of 1953.

5. Plaintiffs claim title through Fateh Mohammad, husband of plaintiff no.1 and father of plaintiffs no2-11, who on his part acquired the land in suit by virtue of Hukumnama dated 07.01.1950 granted by ex - landlord Maharaja, Chota Nagpur Estate and after his death the plaintiff has succeeded to the property. After vesting of the intermediary rights, said Fateh Mohammad was found to be in possession of the land and accepted as raiyat, rent was accepted and rent receipts were issued.

6. Defendants are legal representatives of one Mana Mian @ Manu Mian @ Noor Mohammad, who was younger brother of Fateh Mohammad and was allowed possession as licencee in the house constructed on plot no.1393.

7. Proceedings under S.71A was initiated against Fateh Mohammad, which was finally decided in his favour. In the said proceedings Mana Mian supported the title of Fateh Mohammad. Leave and licence of Mana Mian was determined on 23rd December 2003.

8. CASE OF DEFENDANT

Case of the defendants is that owner of the property namely Suleman Kristan son of Dudu Oraon and Abhiram Oraon transferred the said land in 1950 to Gulam Mohammad @ Gule Mian. There are two distinct plots being 1393 and 1397 in the same campus on which two independent houses were constructed.

9. House standing on plot no.1393 was constructed by Gulam Mohammad sometime in the year 1950-51 and since then has been residing there. Assertions regarding leave and licence have been denied by the Defendants. The defendants are the heirs and successors of the Gulam Mohammad.

10. A proceeding was initiated under S.71A of Scheduled Area Regulation Act on an application of Suleman Tirkey. The said case was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 72/72. The restoration application was rejected by Sub-Divisional Magistrate impleading the four brothers namely Fateh Mohammad, Wasi Mohammad, Gulam Mohammad and Noor Mohammad @ Mana Mian. Later, another petition was filed under S.71A of Scheduled Area Regulation Act , which was also rejected.

11. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following main issues were framed.

Issue No. V - Whether Suleman Christan and Abhiram Oraon sold and transferred the Plot No. 1393 corresponding to R.S. Plot No. 65 to Gul Mohammad @ Gule Mian in 1950 and since then he is still in possession of the suit property?

Issue No.VI - Whether the house standing on Plot No. 1393 was constructed by Gule Mian in 1950-51 and since then has been residing there?

12. Learned Trial Court has decided both these issues against the plaintiffs and the suit was dismissed. It was inter alia held that plaintiff had not claimed any declaration of title which was hotly cont