Second Appeal No. 134 of 1991 has been filed by the defendants and the Second Appeal No.23 of 1992 has been filed by the plaintiffs. Both these appeals have been filed against the common judgment in Title Appeal No.1 of 1989 reversing the judgment and decree dated 28.12.88 by the Assistant District Judge, Golaghat in Title Suit No.32 of 1986. 2. The land in suit was originally the annual patta land and it was converted to periodic patta in the name of the plaintiffs in the year 1984. Before the land was converted to periodic patta? the land was sold by the father of the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant and the defendant constructed houses on a portion of the land and he is in occupation of the houses on the land. The area of the land is 3 bighas 15 lechas. The trial Court found that the defendant has acquired right to the land by adverse possession. That finding of the trial Court was accepted by the learned appellate Court. But the appellate Court partly allowed the appeal confirming the title only of the plaintiffs. This is really a chaotic situation. Once it is held that the defendant has acquired right, title and interest to the land by adverse possession, the title of the plaintiff shall stand extinguished and the question of declaring right, title and interest of the plaintiff does not arise. Be that as it may, the whole approach of the Courts below are erroneous in law inasmuch as the land was converted to periodic patta in the year 1984 and the suit was filed in the year 1986. So, the question of adverse possession by the defendants is absolutely irrelevant inasmuch as a person cannot acquire right, title and interest to the land when the land is covered by annual patta. The question of acquiring right to the land by adverse possession when the land is annual patta is not recognised by law and that has been decided/held by several decisions of this Court. In that view of the matter, the plaintiff has right, title and interest to the land and he is entitled to recovery of possession. 3. The question of acquiring right to the land by adverse possession when the land is annual patta is not recognised by law and that has been decided/held by several decisions of this Court. In that view of the matter, the plaintiff has right, title and interest to the land and he is entitled to recovery of possession. 3. At this stage, Shri Chaliha submits that the interest of justice and equity demands that the plaintiffs should not be allowed to reap the fruit wrongfully inasmuch as the Courts below found that there was a sale in his favour when the land was annual and now he has constructed his house and if he is evicted from the land it will be really a pitiable situation. Considering that aspect of the matter and as undertaken by Shri DC Mahanta, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent with his usual magnanimity and fairness, it is ordered that the suit will stand dismissed for the portion of the land under the homestead of the defendant. The suit will be decreed only for the portion of the agricultural land and the execution will be levied only for the portion of agricultural land. The executing Court shall protect the possession of the defendant over the homestead land. 4. Both the second appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.