JUDGMENT Gurusharan Sharma, J. - Plaintiff is appellant. His suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and in alternative for recovery of possession over the suit land, described in Schedule to the plaint against the defendants was dismissed and trial Court's decree was affirmed by the 1st appellate Court. 2. According to plaintiff, one Soma Oraon had a son, Chotka Budhwa @ Budhwa, who had three sons, Soma, Sohrai and Aanjha. Soma and Aanjha died issueless and their branch became extinct. Sohrai was a Tana Bhagat and he died leaving behind his son, Darjo Tana Bhagat, the plaintiff. 3. Defendants, on the other hand, claimed that Narya Oraon was son of Budhwa Oraon and thus he was full brother of SohraLHe had adopted christanity and, therefore, during his life time Chotka Buhdhwa @ Budhwa separated him and allotted some lands exclusively to him and as such his claim was recorded in respect of lands of Cadestral Suryey Khata No. 145. 4. After death of Chotka Budhwa @ Budhwa Partition Suit No. 80 of 1939 was filed against Sohrai Tana Bhagat, father of the plaintiff, which was decreed ex-parte and consequently, preliminary and final decrees were passed and in execution of final decree Narya Oraon got delivery of possession over the lands allotted to him by processes of Court on 2.12.1939. 5. On the aforesaid pleadings of the defendants in their written statement, Plaintiff got his plaint amended and thereby new paragraphs 6 (a) and (b) were added, wherein he expressed his unawareness about the said suit, decree obtained therein and delivery of possession of the lands, which is part of suit land, in the year 1939. 6. According to plaintiff, Narya Uraon took advantage of the absence of Sohrai, who was in jail in connection with freedom revolution movement and on the basis of false claim, one of the sons of Chotka Budhwa @ Budhwa obtained ex-parte decree therein. 7. It is pertinent to mention here that inspite of getting knowledge of Partition Suit No. 80 of 1939 and the decree passed therein, plaintiff did not challenge the said decree either by making amendment in the plaint or by filing a separate suit. Unless the said decree was set aside, there was no question of declaration of plaintiff's title and or recovery of possession of the suit land. 8. Unless the said decree was set aside, there was no question of declaration of plaintiff's title and or recovery of possession of the suit land. 8. In view of the aforesaid decree passed by a competent court of civil jurisdiction in the year'1939, heavy onus was on the plaintiff to establish that Chotka Budhwa son of Soma Oraon, father of Narya Oraon was different and not the same person, Report of Pleader Commissioner in Partition Suit No. 80 of 1939 at the time of preparation of separate takhtas in connection with final decree is Exhibit-C. 9. Both the courts below rightly recorded concurrent findings of fact that plaintiff failed to prove that any fraud was committed in obtaining final decree as well as delivery of possession of the suit land in the year 1939. 10. This Second appeal is concluded by concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two courts below. There is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly, dismissed, but without costs.