JUDGMENT : A.K. RATH, J. 1. Plaintiff is the appellant against a confirming judgment in a suit for declaration of title over Schedule-A property and delivery of possession. 2. The following genealogy would show the relationship of the parties: Ghana Tanu Indramani Jagannatha (Platff.) Kmal Lochan D.1 Kailash D.2 = Khusuni (wife) D.1(a) Jala-dhar D.(b) Murali 1(c) Rajat 1(d) Nara-hari 1(e) Mano-ranjan 1(f) Paresh 3. Ghana was the common ancestor of the parties. He had two sons, Tanu and Indramani. All are dead. Plaintiff is the son of Tanu. Indramani had two sons, Kamal Lochan- defendant no.1 and Kailash-defendant no.2. The case of the plaintiff was that his father Tanu had purchased Ac.0.05 dec. of land appertaining to hal khata no.88, plot nos. 281 & 282, Mouza Palasia, Ward No.8 of Karanjia N.A.C. (Schedule-B land) prior to 1931 settlement from one Rambha Dibya for a consideration of Rs.17/-. It was an oral sale. Possession was delivered to him. His father had constructed a house and residing therein. His father's name had been recorded in the last settlement. It was further stated that Ghana was a permanent resident of Village-Goudagaon. He had only Ac.0.42 dec. of land. The said land was not fertile. There was no surplus income from the joint family property. Schedule-B land was the self-acquired property of his father. Indramani, father of defendants 1 and 2 had approached his father to stay over Schedule-A land till construction of his house. His father permitted him to occupy a portion of Schedule-A land, which is a part of Schedule-B land. Indramani constructed a small house over the same and stayed with his family. In the year 1997, defendant no.1 got Schedule-A land demarcated in P.F.I. Case No.734/97. The defendants claimed that Schedule-A land fell to their share in the family partition in the year 1931. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra. 4. The defendants filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendants was that Ghana had cultivable land in village Goudagaon. Prior to 1930-31 settlement, Ghana came to Karanjia and stayed there. Tanu and Indramani were minors at that time. They were working as servants. After death of Ghana, they were living jointly. They purchased Schedule-B land from Gada Prusty and Sadhu Prusty, sons of Rambha Bewa and constructed a house over Schedule-B land. Prior to 1930-31 settlement, Ghana came to Karanjia and stayed there. Tanu and Indramani were minors at that time. They were working as servants. After death of Ghana, they were living jointly. They purchased Schedule-B land from Gada Prusty and Sadhu Prusty, sons of Rambha Bewa and constructed a house over Schedule-B land. After marriage, Indramani became separate. The joint family house situated over Schedule-B land was partitioned. Tanu got western portion. Indramani got eastern portion. Subsequently Indramani constructed another room. The partition took place about 55 years back. Tanu and Indramani were in separate possession. Tanu being the eldest brother and karta of the family, Schedule-A land was recorded in his favour in 1930-31 settlement. Indramani was illiterate. He was not aware of the same. Kamal Lochan was working as a peon-cum-driver in the office of B.D.O. from 1958 to 1993. He renovated the old house. In the hal R.O.R., Schedule-A land had been recorded in the name of the plaintiff as per the previous R.O.R. The plaintiff had managed to record his name in Schedule B land in connivance with the settlement officer. Schedule-B land had been purchased by Tanu and Indramani out of joint family income. Indramani got Schedule-A land in an amicable oral partition about 55 years back. They are in possession of Schedule-A land peacefully, continuously and with the hostile animus for more than the statutory period and, as such, perfected title by way of adverse possession. 5. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck six issues. Parties led evidence, oral and documentary. On an assessment of the evidence on record and pleadings, learned trial court came to hold that Schedule-B land was purchased by both Tanu and Indramani out of joint family income. Indramani got Schedule-A land in an amicable oral partition, which had taken place about 55 to 60 years back. The plaintiff had failed to establish that Schedule-A land was the self-acquired property of his father Tanu and the defendants and their ancestor Indramani were/are in permissive possession over the same. The defendants have right, title and interest over Schedule-A land. They are in possession of the same since the time of partition. Held so, it dismissed the suit. The plaintiff had failed to establish that Schedule-A land was the self-acquired property of his father Tanu and the defendants and their ancestor Indramani were/are in permissive possession over the same. The defendants have right, title and interest over Schedule-A land. They are in possession of the same since the time of partition. Held so, it dismissed the suit. Unsuccessful plaintiff filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Baripada, which was subsequently transferred to the court of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Baripada and renumbered as T.A.No.14/14 of 2001-2003, which was eventually dismissed. It is apt to state here that during pendency of the appeal, the appellant died, whereafter his legal heirs have been substituted. 6. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: "(1) The parties being 'Sabar' by caste and the provisions of Hindu Law being not applicable to them as has been rightly held by both the learned courts below, whether the findings of the learned courts below regarding issue no.4 that suit property has been acquired out of joint family nucleus are sustainable in the eye of law since they are governed by their own custom ? (2) Whether the courts below are justified in holding that Schedule-B land fell to the share of Indramani by oral partition, in absence of any evidence on record. 7. Heard Mr.Tanmay Mishra along with Mr.Soumya Sekhar Parida, learned Advocates on behalf of Mr.M.K.Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants and Mr.Alok Kumar Mohanty, learned Advocate for the respondents. 8. Mr.Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the suit land had been recorded in the name of the plaintiff. The R.O.R. and the mutation list disclose about recording of the land in favour of Tanu. The courts below did not delve into the same and proceeded on the assumption that the properties could have been acquired out of joint family funds. He further submits that the parties are 'Sabar' by caste. They are Scheduled Tribe. The provisions of the Hindu Succession Act are not applicable to them. The courts below have not considered the matter in its proper perspective and held that the suit properties were the joint family properties of Tanu and Indramani. The findings are perverse. 9. He further submits that the parties are 'Sabar' by caste. They are Scheduled Tribe. The provisions of the Hindu Succession Act are not applicable to them. The courts below have not considered the matter in its proper perspective and held that the suit properties were the joint family properties of Tanu and Indramani. The findings are perverse. 9. Mr.Mohanty, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the plaintiff had not proved that his father had purchased the suit land orally from Rambha Dibya out of his own income. P.W.2 in his evidence stated that the ancestors of the defendants with the permission of Tanu were staying over the suit land. At that time, he was aged about 10 to 12 years. Learned trial court has rightly held that the evidence of P.W.2 does not inspire confidence. It further held that P.W.1 could not state about the purchase of land by his father. P.W.2 had not stated about the purchase of suit land by Tanu. Defendant no.2 stated that the suit land was divided between his father and Tanu. Tanu got Ac.0.03 dec. of land and his father got Ac.0.02 dec. of land. After partition, his father and elder brother made extension of the house. The defendants are in possession over the suit land by constructing the house since their father's time in an amicable partition. The suit land was purchased by both the brothers out of the joint family funds in the name of Tanu as he was the karta of the family. Schedule-B land is the joint family property of the parties. The defendants are the rightful owner of Schedule-A land, which is a part of Schedule-B land. 10. On a scanning of the evidence on record and pleadings, learned appellate court concurred with the findings of the trial court and held that Rambha Dibya, Brunda Prusty, Sadhu Prusty, Gadda Prusty were the original recorded tenants of the suit land. They sold the land for a consideration of Rs.17/-. It was an oral sale. The family had no residential house. The family had Ac.0.42 dec. of agricultural land in village Goudagaon. The plaintiff had admitted that the family had landed property at village Neuti and the same had been jointly recorded in his name along with the name of Indramani. The land had been purchased by his grand-father Ghana. Ghana had acquired the land in village Girima. The family had Ac.0.42 dec. of agricultural land in village Goudagaon. The plaintiff had admitted that the family had landed property at village Neuti and the same had been jointly recorded in his name along with the name of Indramani. The land had been purchased by his grand-father Ghana. Ghana had acquired the land in village Girima. The family had properties in three different villages, out of which the consideration amount of Rs.17/- had been arranged for purchase of Schedule-B property. Tanu was the karta of the family. He had the opportunity to utilize the income of Indramani, who was a bachelor and stayed with him to acquire Schedule-B land. Tanu and Indramani stayed for a long time over Schedule-B land. There was amicable partition after the marriage of Indramani. There was a common wall between their residential house. It is indicative of the fact that Tanu and Indramani constructed the house jointly and both of them had occupied one room each. Tanu died in the year 1983. Indramani had stayed over Schedule-A land till the death of Tanu. Indramani was allowed one room over Schedule-B land. Indramani and his son Kamal Lochan had constructed 4 to 5 rooms in addition to the existing structure. Tanu had not objected to the same. The defendants are in occupation of Schedule-B land for the last 55 to 60 years. Separate holding number had been assigned to the defendants in respect of the house situated over Schedule-A land. They used to pay electricity and water charges separately. Since Tanu was the karta after the death of Ghana and Indramani was a minor, mutation list was prepared alone in the name of Tanu in the year 1931. The hal R.O.R. was prepared in favour of the plaintiff basing on the previous R.O.R. R.O.R neither creates title nor extinguishes title. Schedule-A land fell to the share of the ancestor of the defendants. There is no material on record that Schedule-A property was the self-acquired property of Tanu. The plaintiff had failed to establish that Schedule-A property was the separate property of his father Tanu. These are essentially finding of facts. There is no perversity or illegality in the said findings. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 11. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.