S.Acharya, J. - (1.)DEFENDANTS 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 have preferred this appeal against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, Balangir in Title Appeal No. 68/12 of 1970 affirming the decision of the trial Court in Title Suit No. 45167.
(2.)DEFENDANT No. 4 has not contested the suit. Defendants 5 and 6 support the Plaintiffs case. Plaintiff No. 1 is a deity and Plaintiffs 2, 3 and 4 claim to be the Sebayats of the said deity.
The suit lands are situated in ex -Sonepur state. The Plaintiffs' case, in short, is that Rama Gouda was the original royat in respect of the suit lands; the ex -Maharaja of Sonepur resumed the said lands to his own possession, and in 1941 directed settlement of the said lands in favour of the deity Plaintiff No. 1 that order was carried into effect in 1946'; accordingly the suit lands came to be recorded in the Settlement records in the name of the deity showing the other Plaintiffs and/or their ancestors as the Sebayats of the said deity; the Appellants -Defendants in 1949 disbursed the possession of the Plaintiffs over the suit lands and so a proceeding under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated and the suit lands were attached and kept in the custody of the Court. The Plaintiffs allege that in spite of the aforesaid order of attachment they remained and continued in possession of the suit lands. In 1961 as the Appellants Defendants again created disturbance in the Plaintiffs' possession of the said lands, another proceeding under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated and the lands again were attached as per the order passed in that proceeding. Criminal Revision No. 355/63 was filed in this Court against an order passed in the said proceeding, and in that Revision it was ordered that the lands would remain under attachment as ordered in the previous proceeding under Section 145. Code of Criminal Procedure and that the parties should get their right, tide and interest declared in the civil Court. Hence the Plaintiffs instituted this suit.

(3.)ACCORDING to the Appellants Defendants they are the descendants of Ranta Gouda, the original royat; they do not know of the resumption of the lands by the ruler as alleged by the Plaintiffs; they (the Appellants) continued in possession of the lands all through, and it was the Plaintiffs who tried to oust the Appellants -Defendants from their possession of the said lands. They further claim that if there was any such resumption proceeding, they have perfected their title to the lands by long continued possession against the interest of the Plaintiffs.