ORDER

This first appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs/appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.11.1999 passed by Additional District Judge, Rewa in Civil Suit No.1-A/1999 whereby the suit filed by plaintiffs for declaration of title, partition of the suit land and house as described in para no. 2 to 4 of the plaint and for mesne profits so also for declaring the sale deeds executed by defendants 1-3 in favour of defendants 10-13 as null and void, has been partly decreed holding the plaintiffs and defendants 1-9 entitled for 1/12- 1/12 equal share in the suit land and house and for separate possession after getting the same partitioned. At the same time, it has also been observed that the land sold by defendants 1-3 in favour of defendants 10-13 vide sale deeds Ex.P/13 & Ex.P/14 shall be adjusted against the shares of defendants 1-3 and shall not affect the rights of plaintiffs.

2 . By challenging the aforesaid judgment and decree, the plaintiffs have contended in this first appeal that married daughters are not entitled for any share in the ancestral residential house and agriculture land and only the plaintiffs 1-2 and defendants 2-4 being coparceners are entitled for equal share and learned trial Court has wrongly declared the plaintiffs and defendants to be entitled for 1/12-1/12 equal share on the basis of principle of natural succession applying the provisions of section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 whereas only the coparceners including the deceased were entitled for 1/5-1/5 share each and only 1/5 share belonging to deceased Ramkrishna Shrivastava should have been divided equally between the plaintiffs and defendants 1-9. He further submits that the plaintiffs are also entitled for mesne profits and costs of the suit from the defendants. He further submits that the land sold by way of sale deeds Ex.P/13 & Ex.P/14 is valuable land and the order/direction for adjustment of that land against the share of defendants 1-3 is illegal. With the aforesaid submissions, it was prayed that the first appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and decree be set-aside.

3 . Learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Courts below. He submits that the property in question belonged to ascendant of plaintiffs and defendants 1-9 namely late Ramkrishna Shrivastava and after his death in the year 1989, the plaintiffs and defendants 1-9 all are entitled for equal share in the house and agriculture land. He further submits that during pendency of the present appeal, all the parties i.e. plaintiffs and defendants 1-9 jointly executed a sale deed dtd. 21.11.2012 (registered on 01.12.2012) in favour of one Shobha Pandey, which is nothing but an acknowledgement of legality of the impugned judgment and decree, whereby they all have accepted the property in question to be joint property of the parties. On inter alia contentions, he submits that there is no scope for interference in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Following points for determination are arising in the present first appeal:

1. Whether after death of Ramkrishna Shrivastava (husband of defendant 1 and father of plaintiffs & defendants 2-9) in the year 1989, the plaintiffs and defendants 1-9 are entitled for 1/12 equal share as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act ?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of mesne profits ?

6. Learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree dtd. 30.11.1999 held that the property in question i.e. the house and land is ancestral property of the parties and there is no dispute about this fact. It is also not in dispute that late Ramkrishna Shrivastava was husband of defendant-1 and father of plaintiffs & defendants 2-9. It has come on record that there was partition of the property among the brothers of late Ramkrishna Shrivastava and the suit property came in