JUDGMENT : G.S. Ahluwalia, J. This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 11.01.2023, passed by District Judge, Lateri, District Vidisha, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 07A/2019 as well as judgment and decree dated 20.06.2019 passed by Civil Judge, Class I, Lateri, District Vidisha in Civil Suit No. 18A/2014. 2. The appeal has been filed by the defendant who has lost her case from both the courts below. 3. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that plaintiffs / respondents No. 1 to 3 filed a civil suit pleading inter alia that plaintiffs / respondents No. 1 to 3 and defendants No. 1 and 2, namely, Salak Ram, and Madan Mohan, as well as father of defendants No. 3 to 6, namely, Brijmohan are the children of Jad Bai. Disputed property, i.e., Khara No. 426 area 5.450 hectares situated in Village - Anandpur, Tahsil - Lateri, District - Vidisha was in the ownership and in possession of Jad Bai. Thus, it was claimed that all six children of Jad Bai had 1/6th share in the property. After the death of Jad Bai, 2.520 hectares of land was recorded in the name of defendant No. 3, 0.789 hectare of land was recorded in the name of defendant No. 2, and 2.151 hectares of land was recorded in the name of defendant No. 8. It was pleaded that since plaintiffs were not made party to the mutation proceedings, therefore, order of mutation dated 11.06.2004 is neither binding on plaintiffs nor their right gets extinguished on account of mutation. It was alleged that 2.520 hectares of land has been alienated by defendant No. 3 to defendant No. 7 without any right. Plaintiffs came to know about the said transaction on 09.06.2014. Thus, it was pleaded that sale of 2.520 hectares of land by defendant No. 3 - Govardhan to defendant No. 7 is not binding to the extent of share of plaintiffs. No partition has taken place amongst the children of Jad Bai. Accordingly, a suit was filed for declaration of title, permanent injunction, as well as for setting aside the order of mutation. 4. Defendant No. 7 filed her written statement and denied the plaint averments. It was denied that land in dispute belonged to Jad Bai. No partition has taken place amongst the children of Jad Bai. Accordingly, a suit was filed for declaration of title, permanent injunction, as well as for setting aside the order of mutation. 4. Defendant No. 7 filed her written statement and denied the plaint averments. It was denied that land in dispute belonged to Jad Bai. It was also denied that after the death of Jad Bai, plaintiffs, as well as defendants Nos. 1, 2, and Brijmohan inherited the property. It was also denied that plaintiffs as well as defendants No. 1, 2, and Brijmohan had 1/6th share in the property. It was claimed that the lands situated in Village - Anandpur were recorded in the names of defendants No. 1 to 6. Plaintiffs had no right or title in Khasra No. 426, area 5.450 hectares. It was further claimed that appellant has purchased the property from defendant No. 3 for a consideration of Rs.2,52,000/-. It was claimed that appellant was the bona fide purchaser. If Jad Bai was the owner of the property in dispute, then why plaintiffs did not take any action either before the revenue Court or the trial Court, and why suit was filed after 12 years of death of Jad Bai. It was claimed that since price of the land has gone up, therefore, suit has been filed with a dishonest intention. 5. No written statement was filed by other defendants. 6. Trial Court, after framing issues and recording evidence, decreed the suit, and it was held that each of the plaintiffs has 1/6th share in the disputed property, and accordingly, it was held that cumulatively all three plaintiffs have half share in the disputed property, and it was also directed that the Collector either by himself or by any subordinate gazetted officer shall carry out the partition and hand over the possession of 1/6th share to each of the plaintiffs, which would be half of Khasra No. 426. Even the cost of suit was awarded to plaintiffs. 7. Being aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, appellant preferred an appeal, which too has been dismissed by the appellate Court. 8. Challenging the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, it is submitted by counsel for appellant that, in fact, it was a collusive suit between plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 1 to 6, and 8. Being aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, appellant preferred an appeal, which too has been dismissed by the appellate Court. 8. Challenging the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, it is submitted by counsel for appellant that, in fact, it was a collusive suit between plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 1 to 6, and 8. Suit was barred by time because the names of defendants No. 1, 2, and Brijmohan were recorded in the revenue records on 11.06.2004, and suit was filed on 25.06.2014, i.e., after 10 years. Since no relief for possession was sought, therefore, suit was barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act . It was further submitted that since appellant was the bona fide purchaser, therefore, her right should have been protected, and proposed the following substantial questions of law:- "(i) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs was barred by limitation as provided under Article 65B of the Limitation Act? (ii) Whether the judgment and decree passed by both the learned Courts below suffer from perversity of finding and misreading of evidence? (iii) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by Article 58 of the Limitation Act? (iv) Whether the suit is barred in view of the proviso appended to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act as relief of possession was not sought by the plaintiffs? (v) Whether the present appellant being the bona fide purchaser is required to be protected and her right title and interest over the suit property should not be disturbed if the plaintiffs are suitably adjusted in respect of the remaining share of other defendants who were the brothers and nephew of the plaintiffs? (vi) Whether the judgment and decree obtained by the plaintiffs by acting in collusion with other co-defendants, namely, defendants no.1, 2, 3 to 6 and 8? (vii) Whether the learned appellate court has committed an illegality in holding that the interim applications which were rejected under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC should have been made the subject matter of challenge at the appropriate time? (viii) Whether the decision on Issue No.4 given by the learned Trial Court was fatal to the plaintiffs as the same was not challenged by way of cross-objections or cross-appeal by the plaintiffs? (ix) Whether the order dated 08.06.2014 and 10.06.2014 passed by the revenue court attained finality in absence of challenge? (viii) Whether the decision on Issue No.4 given by the learned Trial Court was fatal to the plaintiffs as the same was not challenged by way of cross-objections or cross-appeal by the plaintiffs? (ix) Whether the order dated 08.06.2014 and 10.06.2014 passed by the revenue court attained finality in absence of challenge? (x) Whether non-examination of the plaintiffs was fatal to the case of the plaintiffs as it is a settled proposition of law that power of attorney holder cannot speak for the principal especially in view of the facts of the present case? (xi) Whether the learned Appellate Court has committed illegality in not considering the written arguments submitted by the appellant and thus violated the mandate of Article 96 of the CPC ? (xii) Whether the appellant's possession and title in respect of the suit property to the extent of the share purchased by her is required to be protected being the bona fide purchaser of the suit property in the facts of the case? Any other substantial question of law which deems fit by this Hon’ble Court may kindly be framed." 9. Heard learned counsel for appellant. 10. So far as the non-challenge of mutation entry for a period of 10 years is concerned, it is suffice to mention here that since mutation entry is not a document of title, therefore, merely because mutation entry remained unchallenged for 10 years would not extinguish the title of plaintiffs. It is true that mutation entry can be considered for collateral purposes for ascertaining the possession, but the question as to whether defendants No. 1 to 6 had perfected their title by way of adverse possession by ousting the plaintiffs or not would also not arise because the suit was filed within 12 years of revenue entries. The question as to whether mutation entry can be treated as ouster of a co-sharer or not is kept open and is not being decided in the present case as the occasion has not arisen for the same. 11. Thus, it is held that suit was not barred by time. 12. During the course of arguments, appellant has not assailed the findings recorded by the Courts below that Jad Bai was the original owner of the property in dispute. In view of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. 11. Thus, it is held that suit was not barred by time. 12. During the course of arguments, appellant has not assailed the findings recorded by the Courts below that Jad Bai was the original owner of the property in dispute. In view of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma And Others , reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1 , it is clear that a daughter will also have a share in the co-parcenary property from her birth in the light of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act . Since the ownership of Jad Bai has not been disputed in this appeal, therefore, it is not necessary to dwell upon this question any further. 13. So far as the submission made by counsel for appellant that suit was barred in the light of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act is concerned, it is held that plaintiffs were not party in the partition proceedings, and partition was done behind their back. They are the co-sharers having equal share in the property. A co-sharer is treated to be in joint possession of each and every inch of the property. Prayer for partition would also impliedly include the prayer for possession. Once plaintiffs are in joint possession, then it was not necessary for plaintiffs to plead for relief of possession separately. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the suit filed by plaintiffs was hit by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act . 14. So far as contention of appellant that appellant is a bona fide purchaser, therefore, her interest should have been protected is concerned, it is suffice to mention here that Jad Bai was succeeded by six children including Brijmohan, who is the father of defendant No. 3, therefore, at the most, it can be said that Brijmohan had 1/6th share in Khasra No.426. Brijmohan has expired, and he has been survived by four legal representatives, i.e., defendant No. 3 - Govardhan, defendant No. 4 - Guddi Bai, defendant No. 5 - Pushpa Bai, and defendant No. 6 - Kshipra Bai. Therefore, at the most, it can be said that Govardhan had 1/4th share in the share of Brijmohan. Brijmohan has expired, and he has been survived by four legal representatives, i.e., defendant No. 3 - Govardhan, defendant No. 4 - Guddi Bai, defendant No. 5 - Pushpa Bai, and defendant No. 6 - Kshipra Bai. Therefore, at the most, it can be said that Govardhan had 1/4th share in the share of Brijmohan. Since appellant has stepped into the shoes of defendant No. 3 - Govardhan on account of sale deed executed in her favour, therefore, it can be said that after having purchased the land to the extent of share of Govardhan, she is entitled to participate in the partition proceedings. 15. Under these circumstances, it is made clear that after the partition proceedings are initiated by the revenue Court, the appellant shall be treated as a co-sharer having purchased the share of defendant No. 3 - Govardhan, i.e., 1/4th out of 1/6th share of Brijmohan and to that extent, sale deed executed in favour of appellant is held to be valid. 16. No other argument is advanced by counsel for appellant. 17. Accordingly, this Court is of considered opinion that as no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. 18. Accordingly, Judgment and decree dated 11.01.2023 passed by District Judge, Lateri, District Vidisha in Regular Civil Appeal No. 07A/2019 as well as judgment and decree dated 20.06.2019 passed by Civil Judge, Class I, Lateri, District Vidisha in Civil Suit No. 18A/2014 are hereby affirmed, subject to modification as mentioned in paragraph 15. 19. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.