JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

The 2nd appeal has been preferred against the reversing judgment.

2. The appellants in this 2^nd appeal were the plaintiffs before the learned trial court in the suit vide C.S. No.33 of 2002 and the respondent nos.1 to 6 before the learned 1^st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide RFA No.05/18 of 2006.

The respondent no.1 in this 2^nd appeal was the defendant no.1 before the learned 1^st appellate court in the suit vide C.S. No.33 of 2002 and the appellant before the learned 1^st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide RFA No.05/18 of 2006.

The respondent nos.2 to 4 in this 2^nd appeal were the defendants nos.2 to 4 in the suit vide C.S. No.33 of 2002 and respondent nos.7 to 9 before the learned 1^st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide RFA No.05/18 of 2006.

3. The suit of the plaintiffs(appellants in this 2^nd appeal) vide C.S. No.33 of 2002 was a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession.

As per the case of the plaintiffs, they (plaintiffs) and proforma defendant nos.2 to 4 are the members of Schedule Tribe community and they belong to one family and their common ancestor was Dhruba Muchu. Dhurba Muchu died leaving behind his six sons, i.e., Bair