Adverse possession

Dear Sir, We have 3.2 acers land in a village in karnataka. It is granted to my grand father (A) in inam abolishion act 1954 which was cultivating by tenents under zamindar.( No tenent claimed) Meanwhile my grandfather brothers filed a suit for partition in trial court and asked the share since it was hindu undivided family property. (A) refused to give and court declared (A) as title holder and dismissed the suit. In that suit Tenets were the parties for evidence and accepted (A) is their owner. Again there was a appeal by (A)'s brothers in senior court. Upon death of (A)in 1963 of title holder, (A)'s Lrs were brought in to record when the suit is pending till 1976.. That court also upheld the order and declared (A) is the title holder. After that LRs became the owners of the said land and they moved to other city for lively hood and ordered the same tenents to continue cultivation on the same permission given by (A). It was just Oral since they we very prompt and faithful to the family. In the year 1985-86 tenents colluded with the revenue officials they have mutated their name saying (A) expired and LRs left village and settled in City. Tenents cultivating the land and paying taxes to government. Hence, Their names should be entered removing (A)'s name. Tenents never filed Form No 7 for occupiancy rights in 1964. Tenets Pleadings. A) for bare injunction 2) (A) lost rights after inam abolishion act and land vested to government in 1954 and govt became owner. 3) on continues possession for long time un interrupted govt made us owners and we got title on the virtue of mutation entry. Not questioned Mutation entry. Evidence provided by tenets. 1)Mutation entry 2)RTC reflected after mutation entry. 3)crop certificate 4)Regarding Long term continues possession. (apart from the tenents acceptence in partiton suit saying (A) is our owner in 1963.) ** NOT PROVIDED ANY TAX PAID RECEIPTS as they have said in mutation". They have never mentioned Adverse possession in their pleadings. Completely denied (A) is the owner of the land. LRS pleadings, A) Granted land in 1954 by Special DC of inams and (A) became owner. B)findings in Partition suits judgements upholding title of (A) as owner. C)LRs are owners and tenents are in permissive possession and denying to vacate hence suit for declaration and counter claim for evicting tenents. D)findings in partiton suit. where, Tenents acceptence saying (A) is our owner. Evidence: A) Endorsement by special DC for granting occupiancy rights in (A)'s name. B)Since their was confusion LRs sent an application to tahashildar asking for regrant, But he send endorsement saying already granted in 1954 hence no need of regrant. in 1988. C)IL,RR, RTC in (A)'s name. concurrent orders in Lrs favor and eviction done. Please provide your valuable opinion on this if at all they move to supreme court. Will they consider permissive possession Or adverse possession.