1. The subject matter of the present second appeal is the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2013 passed in Civil Appeal No.29-A/2012 by Additional District Judge, Chachoda, District Guna (M.P.), whereby the judgment and decree dated 7.5.2012 passed in Civil Suit No.1-A/2012 by the Additional Judge to the Court of Civil Judge Class-1, Chachoda, District Guna, rejecting the suit filed by the present appellants/plaintiffs has been affirmed.

2. The facts in brief necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal are that the appellants/plaintiffs are the daughters of the deceased defendant No.1 Shrilal, who expired during the course of consideration of the first appeal. The deceased defendant No.1 Shrilal was a coparcener with his father Shri Biharilal being the Karta of the Hindu Undivided Family (for brevity, 'HUF'). The defendant No.1 had two brothers, who further have their children. After the death of Biharilal, the remaining coparceners, i.e., the defendant No.1 and his two brothers, entered into family settlement and carried out partition of the properties in the name of HUF. Subsequent to partition, the defendant No.1 acquired the ownership of Survey No.503 admeasuring 3.166 hectares, Survey No.875/1 admeasuring 4.682 hectare, Survey No.876 admeasuring 0.084 hectares, Survey No.532/2 admeasuring 1.902 hectares, and Survey No.778 admeasuring 0.052 hectares in village Bhamawat, Tahsil Kumbhraj, District Guna (M.P.).

3. During the life time of deceased defendant No.1, he had sole possession over the land in question described above. As indicated above, the defendant No.1 had three daughters, who are the plaintiffs. The defendant No.1 parted with his ownership from the land in question by executing three separate sale deeds on 7.9.2010. Vide the first sale deed (Ex.D-2), the land of Survey No.503 was sold to the defendant No.2. The second sale deed (Ex.D-3) was executed for transfer of a part of Survey No.875/1 and 876 in favour of defendants No.4 and 5. The third sale deed (Ex.D-1) was executed for transfer of the land of Survey No.532/2, 778 and remaining portion of Survey No.875/1 in favour of defendant No.3.

4. The appellants/plaintiffs have objection to the transfer of property in question on the ground that they have coparcenary rights in the property in question, as they are the daughters of the defendant No.1. In order to substantiate this ground, the appellants/plaintiffs relied on the amendment carried out in the year 2005 under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, by which the rights have been conferred on the Hindu females to have coparcenary rights in the property of HUF. Consequently, the suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been filed before the Court of Civil Judge Class-1 to declare the sale deeds dated 7.9.2010 as null and void.

5. It is borne out from the record that the plaint has been framed in a manner that the appellants/plaintiffs have admitted the status of the property in question to be a separate property and not the property under HUF, as the partition has already taken place amongst the coparceners of the HUF prior to coming into force of the amendment of 2005 in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The record further reveals that in the cross-examination, the appellants/plaintiffs have admitted that they are born post the year 1956. On a cumulative consideration of these facts and the evidence brought on record by both the parties, the trial Court vide judgment dated 7.5.2012 dismissed the suit.

6. The appellants/plaintiffs challenged the judgment pronounced by the trial Court by the way of appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the first appellate Court, District Guna in an appeal bearing Civil Appeal No.29A/2012 and canvassed the same grounds that they have interest in the property of the deceased defendant No.1 Shrilal and, therefore, execution of sale deeds dated 7.9.2010 is null and void as the transfer is without the consent of the appellants/plaintiffs. The