JUDGEMENT

and decree dated 27/03/2023 by passing the impugned order dated 11/03/2024 without impleading all the parties of the suit in the appeal memo and not dismissing the appeal for non-joinder of necessary parties?

2) Whether, the learned appellate Court has erred in reversing the judgment and decree dated 27/03/2023 on the question of limitation ignoring the admission of the plaintiff witness and by over reaching its jurisdiction?

3) Whether, the learned appellate Court was legally correct in granting the rights arising through adverse possession in succession as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?

4) Whether, the learned appellate Court was justified in cancelling the registered sale deed dated 04/04/2014 executed in favour of the appellant by respondent No.6 - Pyarelal by declaring it as void without dealing with the question of loss and compensation caused to the appellant?

5) Whether, the learned appellate Court was legally correct in declaring the suit land as an ancestral property and the plaintiffs and all the successors of Mangilal as owner and possession holder of the so- called ancestral land without impleading necessary parties in the suit and in the appeal?"

Also heard on I.A.No.3545/2024, which is an application under Order XLI Rule 5 r/w Section 151 of CPC.

Counsel for the appellant submits that respondents No.17, 18 and 19 have already filed execution for mutation before the revenue authorities, therefore, if the stay is not granted, then this appeal will rendered infructuous.

Counsel for the respondents No.17, 18 and 19 opposes the application and prays for time to file reply.

On due consideration, it is directed that parties shall maintain status quo in respect of the suit property and if the mutation proceeding has been drawn, the same shall be stayed, till next date of hearing.

Issue notice to the remaining respondents on payment of process fee within seven working days.

Notices be made returnable within eight weeks.

Certified copy as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE Tej