NAGENDRA RAI, J. :-

1. Both the Misc. Appeal and the Civil Revision have been filed against the judgment dated the 26th of May, 1984, passed by the Subordinate Judge, Bhabhua, in Misc. Appeal No. 7 of 1980, allowing the appeal filed by the respondents Ram Surat Koeri and others against the order dated 30-1-1980, passed by the Munsif, Bhabhua, in Misc. Case No. 106 of 1974 by which the Munsif had allowed the claim of the appellant under Order XXI, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code).

2. Both the cases were admitted. Civil Revision was placed for hearing before a learned single Judge and he, by order dated 18-11-1987 referred the matter to a Division Bench. Misc. Appeal was also ordered to be heard along with the said Civil Revision and, accordingly, both the matters were placed before a Division Bench and the Division Bench heard the matter and by order dated 11-9-1995 referred the matter before a Full Bench for a decision on the following issue :-

"Whether with regard to claim or objection under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code disposed of after coming into force of the amended provision but filed before the commencement of amended provision the unamended provision of Order XXI, Rules 58 to 63 or Amended Provision of Order XXI, Rule 58 will apply."

3. Shorn of details, the facts necessary for disposal of the present matter are as follows : There was a dispute between Ram Surat Koeri and others, who are respondents and opposite parties in the Misc. Appeal and the Civil Revision respectively (who will be referred hereinafter as the respondents) on the one hand and Tapasi Singh, Ram Nihora Singh and others on the other hand with regard to the land of plot No. 931, measuring 1.13 acres under khata No. 290 situated in village Raipur Baraj, district Bhabhua. Said Tapasi Singh and Ram Nihora Singh are the brother and nephew of Brij Mohan Singh, whose widow Darba Kuer and daughter Dulhin Sundarpati Devi had filed a claim under Order XXI, Rule 58 of the Code. Darba Kuer died in the year 1976 and her daughter Dulhin Sundarpati Devi is the appellant and petitioner in the Misc. Appeal and the Civil Revision, respectively (who will be hereinafter referred to as the appellant).

4. In the year 1969, a proceeding under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Cr. P. C.) was initiated between respondents on the one hand and aforesaid Ram Nihora Singh and others on the other with regard to the said land. The said proceeding was decided in favour of respondent-Ram Surat Koeri and others. Tapasi Singh, Ram Nihora Singh and others, filed Title Suit No. 81 of 1959 for declaration of their title and recovery of possession over the disputed land against respondent-Ram Surat Koeri and others. The said title suit was decreed on 29-6-1963. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, respondent-Ram Surat Koeri and others filed Title Appeal No. 42 of 1963, which was allowed by the first appellate Court on 25-7-1970. Aforesaid Tapasi Singh and others filed Second Appeal No. 457 of 1970 before this Court, which was dismissed on 26-7-1974. While the appeal was pending before the first appellate Court, aforesaid Ram Nihora Singh and others levied Execution No. 40 of 1968 for delivery of possession on the basis of the decree rendered by the trial Court and they were given the delivery of possession through the process of the Court on 9-9-1968. When the decree of the trial Court in the aforesaid suit was set aside by the first appellate Court, respondent-Ram Surat Koeri and others filed an application under Sec. 144 of the Cr. P. C. for recovery of possession, which was allowed on 10-9-1974. Thereafter, they levied Execution Case No. 89 of 1974 against Tapasi Singh and others for delivery of possession of the disputed land. On 26-11-1974, the executing Court issued an order for delivery of possession. Thereafter, Darba Kuer and Dulhin Sundarpati Devi (appellant), widow and daugh