ORDER

Interlocutory Application No. 01 of 2021:

This interlocutory application has been filed under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure for staying the further proceeding of Execution Case No. 34 of 2020 pending before the Court of learned Sub Judge, 14th, Patna. A supplementary affidavit has also been filed for clarifying the defect as pointed out by the stamp report dated 25.02.2023 with regard to defect no. 25, 26 & 27.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants fairly submits that during the pendency of the instant appeal, delivery of possession was taken by respondents through process of the Court. The Learned Counsel for the appellants further submits that after taking possession, existing building was demolished although part of the said building still exist which has been mentioned in the supplementary affidavit. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Execution Case no. 34 of 2020 has been concluded by giving possession to the decree holder. The said interlocutory application is deemed to be infructuous.

Interlocutory Application No. 02 of 2022:

3. This interlocutory application has been filed on 26.02.2022 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for seeking an order of status quo by way of ad-interim injunction for restraining the respondents from either alienating, encumbering or changing the physical feature of suit property during the pendency of the present appeal.

4. The suit was filed by the appellants for declaration of title and for declaration that defendant no. 6 did not acquire any title and possession of the suit land on the basis of sale deed dated 16.09.1983 which was brought into existence during the pendency of Title Suit no. 280 of 1983 and the same is illegal, null and void, inoperative, unauthorized and without consideration and also for temporary injunction.

5. The case of the plaintiffs/appellants is that 1.39 acres of land bearing plot no. 54 khata no. 507 in Mauza Dhakanpura at present P.S. Krishnapuri, Patna, stands recorded in the name of Ajit Mahto son of Lekhraj Mahto and Harihar Mahto and Laxman Mahto and Vishnu Mahto son of Gopi Mahto. It is contended that Kumari Ben Lata Dey acquired the entire area of plot no. 54 from Khatiyani Raiyat and she had been coming in possession. It is further stated that she started the girl’s school in the said plot after constructing a building in southern portion of plot no. 54 which came to be known as ‘Subhash Kanan’. Further case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiffs are privileged tenants and belong to backward community and Kailash Mahto served Ben Lata Dey and his wife helped her in her household work. It is stated that Ben Lata Dey was pleased with the service of Kailash Mahto and his wife and she treated Kailash Mahto as her son and she gave portion of plot no. 54 measuring 82 feet in length from east to west and 30 feet breadth from north to south fully described in schedule 1 at the foot of the plaint permanently, for construction of house and she got Kailash Mahto settled in that land. It is further case of the plaintiffs that Kailash Mahto constructed brick built house in the suit land from his own fund and started living therein with members of his family since 1959. It is pleaded that Kumari Ben Lata Dey died unmarried and her property devolved upon her nephew Ashish Kumar Dey and he also died leaving behind his widow Vani Dey and his son Devanshish Dey, who succeeded to the property of Ashish Kumar Dey. It is stated that from this facts, it is quite clear that plaintiffs have got title and possession over the suit land and house and plaintiffs have been coming in possession of the house and land continuously since 1958 uninterruptedly without any objection by anybody peacefully and in their own right and to the knowledge of exclusion of Ben Lata Dey and her heirs. Hence, by adverse possession also, the plaintiffs have acquired title and possession on the suit land and house. It is submitted that d