The legal point established is that the notice under Order 1, Rule 8(2), C.P.C. is mandatory and must disclose the nature of the suit and the reliefs claimed, and that the recognition of the defendants' right of way by the consolidation authorities operated as res judicata.

Judgement

JUDGMENT :- Some of the defendants are the appellants before this Court against a reversing judgment.

2. Initially the suit had been filed for declaration that the plaintiffs are the owner in possession of A-schedule property which they had purchased under a registered sale deed dated 4-12-1968 and for declaration that neither villagers nor the defendants ever used the suit property as passage for going to the river ghat, for a confirmation of possession and permanent injunction. During pendency of the suit notification under the Consolidation of Holdings and Fragmentation of Land Act was published and accordingly the suit was confined to prayer for permanent injunction only.

2A. Case of the plaintiffs is that Schedule-B property is a part and parcel of Schedule-A property belonging to the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and father of plaintiff No. 3. Plaintiffs 1 and 3 and father of plaintiff No. 3 were the sikimi tenants and after death of father, the plaintiff No. 3 possessed the share of his father and was recognised by the owner as a tenant. In course of time the plaintiffs purchased property under their occupation from the owner under registered sale deed and became full owner in respect of the said properties. Further case of the plaintiffs is that the disputed properties are Class I lands and though in the rainy season the land gets submerged with water for about 4 to 5 months, during rest of the period the plaintiffs while in actual physical and exclusive possession cultivate the lands. It is pleaded in the plaint that Schedule B property which is a part of Schedule A property was never used as pathway of the villagers or the defendants 1 to 6 for the purpose of going to the river ghat. The settlement authorities on perusal of the sale deeds had recorded the schedule property in the names of the plaintiffs but erroneously mentioned therein that it is a public road in the remark column. The plaintiffs also pleaded that the defendants have no manner of right, title, interest or possession over the suit property and in order to make illegal gain the defendants 4 and 5 started a case under Section 144, Cr. P. C. in respect of the suit land for which the plaintiffs were forced to file the suit for declaration of their right, title, interest and for injunction.

3. Defendants 1 to 6 contested the suit and filed written statement. Their case is that the plaintiffs are not the full owner of the land after they purchased the same in the year 1968 and the land was never being used as Chasa land as claimed by the plaintiffs. Specific plea of the defendants is that there is no panchayat road in the village for going to Gobari River Ghat and the villagers including the said defendants used the suit land as passage to go to the river ghat. Since there is no well or tank in the village, the villagers are using the river water for their domestic and drinking purpose and excepting the disputed land there is no other passage or road from the village to the river ghat. Considering the aforesaid fact the settlement authorities though recorded the land in favour of the plaintiffs in the remark column, noted that it was a village road. Against the entries made by the settlement authorities an appeal was filed by the plaintiffs and during pendency of the appeal an Inspector was deputed to inspect the spot and submit report. After considering the report submitted by the Inspector, the appeal was dismissed and the recording in the remark column that the suit land is a public road was upheld. Apart from the aforesaid objection raised in the written statement objection with regard to maintainability of the suit was taken.

4. On the pleadings of the parties the learned Munsif, 2nd Court, Cuttack framed seven issues and dismissed the suit on the following findings:

(i) Since the relief for declaration of title has abated due to notification under the Consolidation of Holdings and Fragmentation of Land Act, the Court cannot adjudicate upon the right and int