JUDGMENT Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. One Porha Uraon of village Buty, district Ranchi (now Lohardaga) left behind two sons Lohra Oraon and Mangra Oraon. Lohra Oraon died leaving behind four sons, Bahira Oraon, Jora Oraon, Khudia Oraon and Chunia Oraon, Bahira Oraon had a son, namely, Mangra Oraon, who left behind a son Jitia and plaintiffs Bir Singh Uraon, Gandura Uraon and Sani Uraon are sons fo said Jitia Oraon. Joro left behind a son Balka and defendant Bisawa Oraon is the son of Balka Oraon. Mangra Oraon left behind, a son Domna Oraon/Pahan who died issueless, and his branch became extinct. 2. Plaintiffs filed Partition Suit No. 29 of 1979 for partition of their 1/3rd share in the properties detailed in Schedules B C and D to the plaint. Genealogical table of the family was given in Schedule A to the plaint. 3. According to the plaintiifs, parties were in joint possession of the suit lands. However, they were cultivating separately for the sake of convenience without any partition by metes and bounds. 4. According to the defendant. Lohra and Mangra had separated before cadastral Survey. In Cadestral Survey Khatian, lands were separately recorded in the name of Domna son of Mangra and lands of defendant were recorded jointly in the names of Jora, Chunia and Khudia, all sons of Lohra. 5. Defendant denied plaintiffs concern with the suit land. In Cadestral Survey and Revisional Survey Khatian, lands were separately and exclusively recorded in the name of plaintiffs grand father, Managra Oraon on the one hand and defendants father. Jitia on the other. On the death of Domna, defendants father Balka being the next reversioner succeeded to the properties left by him. He also denied plaintiffs to be descendants of Porha Uraon. They had nothing to do with the lands of aforesaid three sons of Lohra Oraon as well as those lands of Domna. Chunia and Khudia both left the village relinquishing the interest in the family properties. 6. Trial Court decreed the suit holding that there was unity fo title and possession of the parties over the suit lands and plaintiffs were entitled for partition of 1/3 share in schedules B, C and D lands. Admittedly, Bahira Oraon was the son of Lohra and defendant failed to prove that plaintiffs were not (he descendants of Porha Oraon. 6. Trial Court decreed the suit holding that there was unity fo title and possession of the parties over the suit lands and plaintiffs were entitled for partition of 1/3 share in schedules B, C and D lands. Admittedly, Bahira Oraon was the son of Lohra and defendant failed to prove that plaintiffs were not (he descendants of Porha Oraon. Names of plaintiffs and defendants father were jointly recorded in respect of the lands of Khewat Nos. 12/1 and 12/2, which fully proved that plaintiffs were not strangers to the defendants family. 7. Defendant preferred Title Appeal No. 2 of 1982. which has been allowed by impugned judgment and decree dated 16.10.1986. Trial Courts decree was reversed and it was held that there was no unity of title and possession between parties over the suit lands and plaintiffs claim, if any, over the suit lands had become time barred by adverse possession and ouster. Plaintiffs father and grand-father remained dispossessed and ousted from the suit lands and they had bona fide impression that suit lands belonged to Balka, Chunia and Khudia. 8. I find that the Court of appeal below on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties recorded finding of fact that plaintiffs father never advanced his claim over the suit lands during his life time, though those lands continued in possession of Balka Oraon alone. Plaintiffs did not belong to the family of Domna Pahan. Their ancestors also did not make any claim over Domnas properties earlier, after he died, There was partition before the cadestral Survey and both sons of Porha Oraon had separated. Plaintiffs also failed to prove that Bahira Oraon was son of Lohra Oraon and they were co-sharers of Domna Pahan. 9. In such circumstance. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed by court of appeal below. 10. In the result, this appeal is dis missed, having no merit. There shall be no order as to costs. Lower Court records may be sent down. 11. Appeal dismissed.