LAND LAW — Proof of Title — Methods of Proof — Sufficiency of One Method

"It has also been settled that title to land can be established/proved by five different ways and that a claimant need not rely on more than one way/method in proving his title to succeed in the effort… In the instant case, both courts agreed that the two methods were proved… The lower court is clearly in error in holding as above because having held that the traditional history as to acquisition and ownership of the land by the appellants was 'sufficiently good' that was the end of the matter as possession of the land goes with ownership thereof particularly where the party in possession has been shown to have been put thereon by the claimant, as in the instant case. In the circumstances of this case a consideration of acts of possession and ownership becomes superfluous since such acts are performed in recognition of the rights of ownership."