Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 23-03-2001 passed in Civil Appeal No. 5-A/1994, whereby the learned lower appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and granted decree of declaration and partition in favour of the plaintiff. This appeal was admitted for hearing on following substantial questions of law:-

"Whether the lower appellate Court was justified in reversing the finding arrived at by the trial Court without discussing the evidence that has come on record and without giving the reasons for the finding arrived at by the trial Court?"

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the parties submitted that the question of law has been framed with regard to the finding of the trial Court contained in para 8 & 9 of the judgment in the matter, whereby the learned trial Court recorded a finding on the share, to which, Sirpatiya and his successors were entitled.

3. The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking declaration that plaintiff No. 1 -Maina Bai is entitled to 1/2 as her share in disputed property ad measuring 58.44 acres along with remaining 1/2 as share of Hukumat Ram. It was further prayed that it be declared that plaintiff No. 2, defendants No. 1 & 2 each are entitled to 1/3 as their share in Hukumat Ram's property. A declaration was also sought to the effect that sale of 9 acres of land by Hukumat Ram without there being any partition, be declared null, void and inoperative. A prayer for grant of possession was also made by the plaintiffs.

4. Plaintiffs case before the trial Court was that Sirpatiya sold 58.44 acres of land in Villages Anjani and Kanharpuri. He died on 02-01-1962. Upon his death, his son-Hukumat Ram and daughter-Maina Bai-plaintiff No. 1 were entitled to succeed to property of Sirpatiya in equal shares but Hukumat Ram got his name mutated in the land records of aforesaid land without notice and knowledge of the plaintiff-Maina Bai, whereas name of Maina Bai was also required to be mutated along with Hukumat Ram, after death of Sirpatiya. It was also pleaded that Hukumat Ram could not have sold any part of the land without consent, therefore, sale of 9 acres of land by Hukumat Ram be declared null and void.

5. The appellants-defendants resisted claim of the plaintiff on the pleadings that Maina Bai being daughter, was not entitled to any share in the property of the deceased-Sirpatiya. She was also married and her share was already given by the father and therefore, suit was liable to be dismissed.

6. Though, learned trial Court found that upon death of Sirpatiya, Maina Bai was entitled to receive her share of 19.47 acres of land, held that the suit was barred by limitation and thus dismissed the suit.

7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the respondents-plaintiffs preferred an appeal. Learned lower appellate Court held that the suit was not barred by limitation. It also proceeded to hold that upon death of Sirpatiya, Maina Bai was entitled to succeed to 1/2 as her share in the property of Sirpatiya along with Hukumat Ram. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate Court, without being heard on the substantial question of law framed by this Court, the appellants-defendants have filed this appeal.

8. Submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that even if it is held that Maina Bai was entitled to succeed to the property of the deceased (Sirpatiya) along with her brother-Hukumat Ram by applications of provision laid down in Section 6/8 of the Hindu Succession Act (In short "the Act"), the evidence on record proved that the entire land was ancestral property and it was first required to be notionally partitioned amongst all the coparceners, which included Sirpatiya, Hukumat Ram and his two sons Chhedi Ram and Barik Ram. Maina Bai would be entitled to succeed to the property only in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 8 of the Act, out of the share, which