1. Present appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 at the instance of defendants No.1 to 4, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.11.1998 passed by Third Additional District Judge, Satna in Civil Suit No.15-A/1992.

2. Parties are referred to as they were before the trial Court.

3. The action was instituted by the plaintiffs seeking declaration that the sale deed executed by defendant No.5 in favour of defendants No.1 to 4 on 31.7.1991 in respect of agricultural land bearing Khasra No.388 and 390 admeasuring 6 Bigh 6 Biswa situated at Mouja Babupur Tahsil Nagod District Satna, be declared null and void and the plaintiffs be declared 1/3rd owner each of the suit property and for possession and permanent injunction and the mesne profits. Contending inter alia that land bearing Araji No.142, 237, 240, 373, 374, 388, 390, 406 and 407, total area 20 Bighas 11 Biswa i.e. 4.295 hectares situated at Village Babupur being an ancestral property with the name of Bhuvneshwar Singh recorded in the revenue record, after whose death, the defendant No.5 was recorded as Bhumiswami being Karta Khandan. That, the defendant No.5 was hard of hearing since his birth. That, defendants No.1 to 4 taking advantage of inherent limitation of defendant No.5, took him to Nagod and got the sale deed in question registered in their name under the garb that the defendant No.5 is selling the suit property to meet out his medical expenses. It was contended that being ancestral property, defendant No.5 had no exclusive right in selling the ancestral property as he was only a Karta Khandan and that the sale was also void because the same was without consideration. It was contended that the plaintiffs came to know about the alleged sale when on 27.10.1991, the defendants No.1 to 4 forcefully took possession of suit property. It was contended that the suit property being ancestral, the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 who are son of defendant No.5 have 1/3rd share each in the property and the plaintiff No.3 being the wife of defendant No.5, have half share in 1/3rd share of defendant No.5 i.e. she declared owner over 1/6th share by declaring the sale deed as null and void.

4. Defendants No.1 to 4 (present appellants) contested the claim. While not disputing the relationship between plaintiffs No.1 and 2 being sons of defendant No.5 and the plaintiff No.3 being his (defendant No.5) wife, the defendants contradicted the claim that the suit property is an ancestral property. Denying further that the suit property is Hindu undivided family property, defendants contended that the suit property being self-acquired property by defendant No.5 and he having sold the same to meet out his personal medical expenses, the sale deed cannot be said to be illegal or void. Besides denying the claim of 1/3rd share by respective plaintiffs, the defendants further denied the right of plaintiffs for mesne profits.

5. Defendant No.5 also filed the written statement, wherein while not disputing his relationship with the plaintiffs, denied that the suit property is ancestral. It was contended that the land being pawai land, he had ownership right as Mourusi Kashtkar. He further contended that no consideration was paid in lieu of the suit property and that the sale deed was got registered by playing fraud. For that the defendants acceded to the claim by the plaintiffs to declare the sale deed as null and void.

6. These pleadings and counter pleadings gave rise to various issues viz., whether the suit property is part of Hindu Undivided Family Property, whether the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit property, whether the sale of property vide registered sale deed dated 31.7.1991 was to meet out the interest of the family and if not whether the sale deed was valid, whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the possession and the mesne profit.

7. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the suit property being part of Hindu Undivided Family Prop