Judgment :- 1. The order dated 25.10.2014 passed in O.S.7425/11 pending on the file of XXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, is called in question on various grounds as set out in the memorandum of petition by defendant nos.13 and 14 in the said suit. 2. Respondents 2 and 3 herein are the parents of 3rd defendant (4th respondent herein). Respondent no.1 is the sole plaintiff the said suit. Respondents 5 to 7 are children of respondent no.4 (defendant no.3)- Munireddy. Respondents 8 to 11 are daughters of defendants 1 and 2, i.e. sisters of the plaintiff. Other respondents are purchasers of properties. Parties will be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as per their ranking before the trial court. 3. Plaintiff is the daughter of defendants 1 and 2. The 3rd defendant is her brother and defendants 7 to 10 are sisters. Defendants 4 to 6 are the children of 3rd defendant. The suit has been filed for the relief of partition and separate possession seeking 1/7th share. According to the plaintiff, the suit schedule properties are joint family properties of the family consisting of herself and defendants 1 to 3 and 7 to 10. It is her case that in the year 2003, defendant no.1 entered into a partition with his only son-3rd defendant on 6.2.2003 and the said document is registered. According to her, only 14 guntas of land in Survey No.48/7 of Belandur village described in 'A' schedule has been allotted to the 1st defendant and remaining properties have been allotted to the 3rd defendant-Munireddy and on the same day, defendants 3 to 6 have partitioned the said properties amongst themselves. 4. It is the case of the plaintiff that she is entitled to 1/7th share in the schedule properties as they are ancestral properties of the 1st defendant. On 22.11.204, defendant nos.6 and 12 are said to have sold 2.10 acres of land in Survey No.34/9 and 22 guntas of land in Survey No.34/10 of Junnasandra village in favour of the 13th defendant under a registered sale deed bearing no.20871/2004-05. The 4th defendant is said to have sold 3.67 acres in Survey No.85/4 on 9.12.2004 in favour of the 11th defendant through a registered sale deed. Later on the 13th defendant is stated to have gifted the properties so purchased in favour of the 14th defendant. 5. The 4th defendant is said to have sold 3.67 acres in Survey No.85/4 on 9.12.2004 in favour of the 11th defendant through a registered sale deed. Later on the 13th defendant is stated to have gifted the properties so purchased in favour of the 14th defendant. 5. It is her case that the plaintiff approached the 1st defendant to give her share and he positively responded to the same. It is her case that 3rd defendant had complete dominance over defendants 1 and 2 and taking undue advantage of their advanced age, he got the partition deed executed and managed to knock off valuable and vast extent of properties in his favour and thus deprived the 1st defendant of his legitimate share. 6. It is her further case that the partition deed entered between 1st defendant and 3rd defendant dated 6.2.2003 and subsequent alienation by defendants 4, 6 and 12 do not bind her and consequently she has sought for the relief of partition of 1/7th share and as many as 13 immovable properties are the subject matter of the suit filed for partition and separate possession. With these pleadings, plaintiff filed the suit. 7. Defendants 1 to 6 have filed joint written statement and defendants 7, 8 and 10 have filed joint written statement, sailing with the plaintiff. Defendants 13 and 14 have filed detailed written statement denying the averments in the plaint. According to them, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts when the partition between the 1st defendant and 3rd defendant took place through a registered deed of partition prior to the commencement of the Succession (Amendment) Act, It is further averred that the very alienation made by this defendant along with 12th defendant in favour of 13th defendant is prior to 20.12.2004 as contemplated under the amended Section 6 of the Act and therefore the suit is specifically barred by law. With these pleadings, respondents 13 and 4 have filed written statement. 8. The 15th defendant has also filed written statement. 9. Issues have been framed by the trial court on 6.2.2013. With these pleadings, respondents 13 and 4 have filed written statement. 8. The 15th defendant has also filed written statement. 9. Issues have been framed by the trial court on 6.2.2013. During the pendency of the suit, an application came to be filed under Order VII Rule 11(d), C.P.C. on behalf of defendants 13 and 14 contending that the suit filed against them is not maintainable either in law on facts, more particularly when the alienation made in favour of the 13th defendant by defendants 6 and 12 was prior to the cut-off date i.e. 20.12.2004 as provided under the amended Section 6 of the Succession Act, 2005. It is contended that the very alienation made being prior to that date cannot be called in question as there is a clear bar under the provision which has come into effect from 9.9.2005. 10. On hearing the arguments and perusing records, the learned judge has dismissed the application by a considered order dated 25.10.2014. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire records summoned from the trial court. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble apex court rendered in the case of ITC LLIMITED .v. DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBIUNAL ([1998] 2 SCC 70 to contend that 'the court has power to reject the plaint even after framing issues and when the case is posted for evidence.' It is argued that framing of issues by the trial court will not come in the way of filing the application under Order VII Rule 11(a), C.P.C. He has relied on yet another decision of the Hon'ble apex court in the case of T.ARIVANDANDAM .v. T.S.SATYAPAL & ANOTHER ( AIR 1977 SC 2421 ) to contend that all frivolous and vexatious suits must be nipped in the bud and clever drafting can create an illusory cause of action to file a suit. 13. Learned counsel has relied on another decision of the Hon'ble apex court in the case of GANDURI KOTESHWARAMMA & ANOTHER .v. CHAKIRI YANADI & ANOTHER reported in (2011) 9 SCC 788 to contend that a right accrued to a daughter in a joint family property by virtue of succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, is absolute except in circumstances provided in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 6. It is argued that when alienation of the joint family property has taken place through a registered deed of sale prior to 20.12.2004, the same comes within the exceptional category and therefore sub-section (5) of Section 6 leaves no room for doubt. It is further argued that sub- section (5) of Section 6 provides that any alienation made prior to 20.12.2004 is saved. 14. The application filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d), C.P.C. will have to be tested not on the basis of the averments found in the written statement, but on the plaint contents. It is true that the plaintiff has referred to the partition deed dated 6.2.2003 entered into between the 1st defendant and 3rd defendant and alienation made on 22.11.2004 by defendants 6 and 12 in favour of the 13th defendant. What is argued before this court is that the very plaint discloses about these two sale deeds which were prior to 20.12.2004 which is the cut-off date mentioned in Section 6 of the Amendment Act of 2005. But we cannot forget that the plaintiff has made a serious allegation against the 3rd defendant that he had dominance over her father and was able to get valuable and vast extent of properties in his share and that he has given only one property to the 1st defendant. It is specifically averred that the 3rd defendant has taken undue advantage of the advanced age of the 1st defendant. 15. The cause title of the plaint discloses that the 1st defendant is presently 82 years and in the year 2003 he was 71 years. It is true that the 1st defendant has joined 2o to 6 in filing the written statement and has sailed along with 3rd defendant in whose favour all the properties except one item has been allotted as his share in the year 2003. But that cannot be considered while discussing on the interlocutory application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d), C.P.C. Whether the plaintiff will be really able to make out a case that the 3rd defendant having dominated over the 1st defendant is a matter of trial. But that cannot be considered while discussing on the interlocutory application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d), C.P.C. Whether the plaintiff will be really able to make out a case that the 3rd defendant having dominated over the 1st defendant is a matter of trial. If, for any reason the plaintiff is able to succeed on the ground that the 3rd defendant has managed to dominate over the 1st defendant and has taken a lion's share, then there will be no partition ion the eye of law as found in the partition deed dated 6.2.2003. This aspect of the matter has been taken into consideration by the trial court while dismissing I.A.1. 16. On reading the entire plaint, it appears that the plaintiff has sought 1/7th share on the ground that the partition so made is no partition ion the eye of law since the 3rd defendant had dominated over the will of the 1st defendant by taking undue advantage of the advanced age of the 1st defendant. In paragraph 16 of the impugned order, learned judge has observed that the claim of the plaintiff is that the registered partition deed dated 6.2.2003 is illegal and that needs to be gone into in ia full fledged trial. If ultimately the defendants are able to make out a case that the 3rd defendant did not dominate over the will of the 1st defendant and the said partition deed is an out-and-out partition entered into on their own volition, the interest of the alienee would be definitely protected. 17. Even otherwise, it appears there is no difficulty to protect the interest of defendants 13 and 14 who have purchased only a small portion of the family properties and nothing comes in the way to request the final decree court to work out equities in their favour by allotting properties purchased by them to the share of the alienor. Learned judge has passed a detailed order adverting to the contentions raised by the parties in their respective pleadings and at the time of submitting arguments on the interlocutory application. Learned judge has exercised his discretion wisely to reject the application and the same cannot be interfered with in a petition under Section 115, C.P.C. Thus no merit is found in the present petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 18. Learned judge has exercised his discretion wisely to reject the application and the same cannot be interfered with in a petition under Section 115, C.P.C. Thus no merit is found in the present petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 18. In the result, I pass the following order: ORDER The petition filed under Section 115, C.P.C. is dismissed. Notwithstanding dismissal of the petition, it is made clear that any observation made by this court or the trial court is limited only to the extent of disposing of the I.A. filed under Order VII Rule 11(d), C.P.C. and the present petition filed under Section 115, C.P.C. Nothing comes in the way of the parties to urge their respective contentions in the light of specific issues being framed by the trial court, more particularly issue no.8 dealing with the aspect of limitation and issue no.10 dealing with the aspect of defendants 13 and 14 being bona fide purchasers of item nos.9 and 10.