JUDGMENT :

Dipak Misra, J.

1.Plaintiffs are in appeal against the affirming judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Cuttack, in a suit for declaration of right, title and interest, permanent injunction, and for eviction of the defendants from the 'B' Schedule property and also for grant of damages.

After stating the pleadings and the evidence, the Hon'ble Court found :

6. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that the plaintiffs' suit is devoid of merit as Sanei did not possess the land as a licensee, but as a lessee; the plaintiffs' suit is vague and there is actually no cause of action for filing of such a suit. The Courts below have also recorded a finding that the defendants are in possession of the suit land since 1930 and they have the right over the entire C.S. Plot No. 148.

7. Before I proceed to address myself with regard to the merits of the second appeal, it is appropriate to deal with the contention of Shri B. Routray,the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs-appellant, who has contended that the suit should abate in view of the notification u/s 3 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmantation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred t