same khatiani raiyat Ratia Oraon and Johan Pradhan. This fact was sought to be substantiated by bringing on record the Record of Rights, as prayed for on an earlier date. That document has not been brought on record to substantiate that contention. Counsel for the petitioners has then relied upon a genealogy incorporated in the order of Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Gumla dated 02.12.1994/14.03.1996 to claim that the petitioners were descendants from the same ancestors as that of private respondent. Even by that case, the property had to devolve by way of partition amongst the descendants. If there was any such sale between the descendants of common ancestors as is being made out, then the requisite permission under Section 46 of the C.N.T Act was mandatory to be obtained. In either case, the transfer of land, if any, in favour of the petitioner on the basis of instrument executed on a plain paper could not stand the test of relevant provisions of C.N.T Act. In that case, the claim for restoration of the land by respondent no. 5 had to succeed, as the transfer claimed by the petitioner was illegal.
