L. MOHAPATRA, J.

( 1 ) 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 ow