ORDER

In this second appeal filed by appellant/plaintiff, the impugned judgment and decree passed in RCA No.05-A/2015 on 26.10.2018 by Fourth Additional District Judge, Chhindwara, has been challenged by which he confirmed the judgment and decree dated 29.3.2014 passed by Second Civil Judge, Class I, Chhindwara, in RCSA No.04-A/2013. Under the judgment of trial court, the suit filed by appellant/plaintiff for seeking declaration of their 1/8th share in the disputed properties, partition, possession and also for declaration that the sale- deed executed in favour of respondent/defendant no.5 Lokesh, dated 24.8.2005, be declared void was dismissed with costs. The first appeal under the impugned judgment and decree was partially allowed and it was declared that the appellant/plaintiff had 1/8th share in the property which their father Babbu alias Babulal was holding on the date of his death.

2. For convenience, the appellant and respondent no.10 shall be referred to as "plaintiffs" and respondents as "defendants" in their respective order.

3. Admitted facts necessary for reference here are that the plaintiffs are the daughters of Babbu alias Babulal, who also have two brothers, namely Motilal and Dimagchand; defendants no.4 to 6 are the legal representatives of Dimagchand, who had pre-deceased his father, namely Babbu alias Babulal as Dimagchand died in the year 2006 while his father Babbu alias Babulal died in 2007-08. It is also an admitted fact that before his death, Babbu alias Babulal executed a sale-deed in favour of defendant no.5 on 24.8.2005 regarding the suit property.

4 (a). Brief facts of the case are that after the amendment enforced in Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act (for brevity, "the Act"), the plaintiffs filed the present suit on 22.1.2013; their claim was that the suit property belonged to their grandfather Udal and, therefore, was their ancestral property; on this basis, they claimed their shares in the suit property and demanded declaration, partition and separate possession of their share; they also challenged the sale- deed executed on 24.8.2005 in favour of defendant no.5 by their father, namely Babbu alias Babulal; the defendants no.4-6 contested the suit by claiming that a partition was effected between Babbu alias Babulal and his two sons, namely Motilal (defendant no.1) and Dimagchand around the year 1988 in which all the three received their shares; upon the death of Dimagchand, defendants no.4-6 became owner of his share while Babbu alias Babulal executed a sale-deed of his share in favour of defendant no.5. It was, however, submitted that property of Survey Nos.44/2, 51/2 and 64 were jointly recorded in the name of all the legal heirs of Babbu alias Babulal at the time of his death and only this property was available for partition and, in case, it is divided amongst the legal heirs, the defendants no.4-6 have no objection to it; defendants no.1, 9 and 10 failed to file any written statements while defendants no.2, 3, 7 and 8 filed their written statements accepting the claim of plaintiffs.

4 (b). The trial court framed the issues and recorded the evidence of both the sides. In its judgment, the trial court dismissed the suit with costs. In the appeal preferred by plaintiffs, the appellate court partially allowed the appeal under the impugned judgment and decree.

5. In this second appeal, the grounds raised are that the plaintiffs were the coparceners in the disputed property, which was their ancestral property, and despite accepting this fact the courts below did not set aside the sale-deed executed in favour of defendant no.5 which was affecting the right, title and interest of plaintiffs as coparceners. It is claimed that the father of plaintiffs had no right to transfer any property beyond his 1/8th share. Plaintiffs, being the daughters, became the coparceners by birth and by denying them relief, great prejudice and miscarriage of justice have been caused. It is, therefore, prayed that the se