Arun Kumar Jha, J. – The petitioners have filed the present petition seeking following relief(s): –

i. Setting aside the order dated 06th July, 2021 passed by Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-I, Barh in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 43/2018; Tr. No. 02/2019 whereby the appeal has been dismissed, affirming the order dated 22nd February 2018 passed by Learned Sub Judge-III, Barh in Title Suit No. 149/2015 by which injunction application dated 10th October 2017 filed by the Plaintiffs/Appellants/Petitioners has been rejected.

ii. Setting aside the order dated 22nd February 2018 passed by Learned Sub Judge- III, Barh in Title Suit No. 149/ 2015 by which injunction application dated 10th October, 2017 filed by the Plaintiffs/Appellants/Petitioners has been rejected.

iii. Issuance of direction to the Defendant 1st Set/Respondent 1st Set/Respondent 1st Set to maintain status quo over the suit land during the pendency of the instant application.”

2. The petitioners are plaintiffs before the learned trial court and they filed Title Suit No. 149 of 2015 for declaration of right and title of the plaintiffs over the suit land and further for declaration that the sale deed dated 13th September, 2010 executed by the defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant no. 1/respondent-1st set with respect to the suit land is void ab initio.

3. The case of the plaintiffs is that the land in questions of Plot No. 2552 along with further 27 decimals of land out of Survey Plot No. 2551 belonged to one Mahendra Sharma, i.e., defendant no. 2, who sold the total 37 decimals of land to plaintiff no. 2 through registered sale deed dated 05.03.1982, but by mistake, total area was mentioned as 27 decimals in place of 37 decimals although the boundary was correct and plaintiff no. 2 was put in possession after execution of the sale deed in 1982 and she has been coming in peaceful possession over the land in question besides other land. The plaintiff no. 2 after purchase of the suit land as well as other lands amalgamated two plots, i.e., Plot No. 2551 and Plot No. 2552 and planted several tress of Mangoes, Teak and Jack fruit. The plaintiffs further claimed that due to mistake of the scribe, the suit land was left to be mentioned in the sale deed dated 05.03.1982 and plaintiffs asked defendants-2nd set in the month of June, 2010 for correction in the sale deed who created an agreement for sale on 30.06.2010 with regard to suit property. Thereafter, on plaintiffs’ further request, the defendants-2nd set corrected the mistake and the defendants-2nd set executed a deed of sale dated 29.01.2015 in favour of the plaintiff no. 1 admitting the previous sale. However, in the first week of January, 2015, the plaintiffs came to know about purported sale deed dated 13.09.2010 executed by the defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant no. 1, when defendant no. 1 threatened the plaintiffs to cut the old planted trees of the suit land. Thereafter, on 20.01.2015, defendant-1st set gave an application before the Sarpanch of Gram Kachahri, Berhna for recovery of possession of the suit land from husband of the plaintiff no. 2 and Gram Kachahri Case No. 01 of 2015 was registered by the Sarpanch.

4. On the other hand the plaintiffs/petitioners filed Title Suit No. 149 of 2015 for declaration of his title over the suit land and also for declaration of sale deed dated 13.09.2010 to be void-ab-initio with respect to suit property. After filing of the suit, the defendants appeared and filed their written statement. The defendant- 1st set contended that he has in possession over the suit land after getting his name mutated in the Government record. It was further contended that sale deed dated 05.03.1982 was executed by the defendant no. 2 in favour of plaintiff no. 2, that too, only with respect of 27 decimals of land appertaining to Plot No. 2551. However, wrong fact has been mentioned in the sale deed and no sale deed was executed with respect to Survey Plot No. 2552. It was further conten