ORDER : 1. The present civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant No.1 challenging the order dated 19.12.2015 passed on I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.137 of 2013 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubli. 2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. Plaintiff No.1 and 2 instituted a suit in O.S.No.137 of 2013 against the present petitioner-defendant No.1 for declaration, declaring that they are the owners of the property comprises CTS ward ‘Extension’, CTS No.4500, 4501, 4510, 4511 and 4496/B and C measuring 112 feet 6 inches North-South, 20 feet 9 inches East-West totally measuring 23-53 square feet situated at Vidya Nagar, Hubli herein which has been referred as ‘B’ schedule property. 4. The said suit has been contested by the defendants by filing the written statement and subsequently on 08.08.2014, I.A. No. III came to be filed under Order VII Rule 11(A) r/w Section 151 of CPC by contending that the suit is not maintainable and it is pre-matured. It is further contended that the cause of action relied upon by the plaintiffs is settlement deed dated 15.09.1983. It is further contended that the cause of action on which the plaintiffs have filed the suit, does not arose, having regard to the fact that the settlement deed would come into effect only after the death of defendant No.1 as per the covenant, which has been entered in the deed of settlement that too only when the defendant No.1, if he has not begotten a mail child. It is further contended that since the petitioner has already alienated the suit schedule property in favour of respondent No.3defendant No.2 and as such, there is no right to the plaintiffs to claim any right over the suit property. On these grounds, he prayed for allowing I.A.No.III. The said application has been contested by the plaintiffs by filing their objections by contending that they have acquired the suit property. By denying the contents of the application, it is further contended that a meaningful reading of the plaint shows that the cause of action to file a suit, the same cannot be decided at this early stage, that too without recording the evidence. The application is liable to be dismissed. By denying the contents of the application, it is further contended that a meaningful reading of the plaint shows that the cause of action to file a suit, the same cannot be decided at this early stage, that too without recording the evidence. The application is liable to be dismissed. After hearing the parties to the proceedings, the impugned order dated 19.12.2015 came to be passed, rejecting the application filed by the defendant. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the defendant No.1 is not a signatory to the said document and the father of the defendant No.1 alleged to have executed the said family settlement deed and under the said deed the plaintiffs will get a right, if the defendant No.1 has not begotten a mail child. He further contended that by a reading of the said clause, there is no cause of action to file the present suit by the plaintiffs. The suit for declaration that they are the owners, will not survive during the life time of the defendant No.1 and as such, it is pre-matured and till the death of the defendant No.1 there will not be any cause of action. He further contended that these aspects have not been considered by this regard by the Trial Court. He further contended that the plain reading of Order 7 Rule 11of CPC, if there is no cause of action, then the suit itself is not maintainable. On these grounds, he prayed for allowing the petition by dismissing the suit. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents-plaintiffs contended that the contention of the defendant No.1 is misconceived when the contingency, which has been created, this property is going to be vested in favour of those persons, the interest has been vested and a right has been created. He further contended that now the defendant no.1 has sold the property during his life time, which is not permissible under the deed, which has been executed by the grand father of the plaintiffs and the defendants. So, when there is no right to sell the property and he has violated the covenant contained in the deed, then under such circumstances, it gives a right to the plaintiffs to file the suit for declaration. So, when there is no right to sell the property and he has violated the covenant contained in the deed, then under such circumstances, it gives a right to the plaintiffs to file the suit for declaration. He further contended that at para No.13 in page No.36 of the plaint, it clearly indicates that the cause of action therein, which has been specifically mentioned that the cause of action in respect of plot No. I and II property arose, when plaintiff No.1 and 2 attained the majority and in respect of the rest of the property i.e., Plot No. III and IV viz. 69.13 of undivided interest in the land and building arose on and after 03.12.2012 and subsequently thereafter, in substance the suit is one for possession based on title. 7. He further contended by relying upon the decision in the case of Mayor (H.K.) Ltd., V/s. Owners and Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express and others of the Hon’ble Apex Court, reported in AIR 2006 SC 1828 by relying upon the said decision, he contended that the plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of allegation made by the defendant in the written statement. He further contended that the whole pleading of the parties has to be considered in order to look into the cause of action and cause of action is question of fact, which has to be gathered on the basis of averments made in the plaint in its entirety and the power under Order 7 Rule 11 cannot to be exercised, where those arrangement made in the plaint, due disclose the cause of action. He also by relying upon the decision in the case of F.M. Devaru Ganapati bhat, V/s. Prabhakar Ganapathi Bhat, reported in AIR 2004 SC 2665 contended that “there is no ban on the transfer of interest in favour of an unborn person and Section 20 of the Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882) permits an interest being created for the benefit of an unborn person, who acquired interest upon his birth.” He further contended that the Trial Court after considering the facts and circumstances, has rightly rejected the application filed under I.A. No. III and the same is justifiable. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the civil revision petition. 8. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the civil revision petition. 8. I have gone through the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and I have also perused the records. Instead of repeating the facts, I feel it just and necessary to consider the issue involved in this case. 9. It is not in dispute that the grand father of the plaintiffs and father of the defendant No.1 are full blood brothers and it is not in dispute that the family settlement deed dated 15.09.1983 has been entered into between the parties and it is not in dispute that under the said deed, the present suit scheduled properties have been given to the defendant No.1 and a covenant has been entered into in the said deed stating that if defendant No.1 not begotten a mail child, then under such circumstances, after his death, the said properties should go to the sons of one Mr. Basavaraj i.e., the plaintiffs. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiffs are the sons of the said Basavaraj Savanur, who is the youngest brother of the defendant No.1. It is not in dispute that the suit properties belong to grand father of the plaintiffs. 10. As could be seen from the records, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaring that the plaintiffs are the owners of the property. Though the sale deed has been executed in favour of respondent No.3defendant No.2 and they are in possession of the property. The only question, which remains for consideration of this Court is, whether the order passed by the learned II-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubli by order dated 19.12.2015, is sustainable in law. 11. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no cause of action in respect of properties in favour of the plaintiffs and as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed and it is the further contention of the plaintiffs that the cause of action, which has been shown in the plaint clearly goes to show that the plaintiffs have acquired the interest over the suit property and the defendant no.1 by violating the covenant, has sold the property in favour of respondent No.3defendant No.2. For the purpose of clarity, I quote Order 7 Rule, 11 of CPC, which reads as under : “11.Rejection of plaint. For the purpose of clarity, I quote Order 7 Rule, 11 of CPC, which reads as under : “11.Rejection of plaint. – The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b)where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so; (c)where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9; [Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature for correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.]” On close reading of the said provision, Court can reject the plaint, where it does not disclose a cause of action, where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiffs, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so, where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written up-on-paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being-required by the court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so; where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; where it is not filed in duplicate; 12. As could be seen from the averments of the plaint, it is the contention of the plaintiffs that by virtue of the settlement deed, if the defendant no.1 not begotten a mail issue, then the properties, which are allotted under the family settlement deed, shall go to the plaintiffs and undisputedly, the plaintiffs herein, are the sons of the younger brother of defendant No.1 and as such, they were having every right to file the suit. 13. It is an admitted fact that under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, the plaint can be rejected, ‘where it does not disclose the cause of action and where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.’ By going through the settlement deed, it clearly indicates that the plaintiffs will get the property in the said settlement deed, if the defendant No.1 not begotten a mail issue. In the said deed, it has not been specifically mentioned with any covenant that during the life time of defendant No.1, the said property should not be alienated or it should not change its nature. When vesting of the interest in the property has been created subject to the condition that, if defendant No.1 not begotten a mail issue, then under such circumstances, the property will not vest unless and until that covenant has been satisfied. Admittedly, defendant No.1 is alive. Though as on today, he has not begotten a mail child, till his death, property will not vest by virtue of the said covenant. Even there is no other material to show that there is no chance of defendant No.1 not getting a mail issue. 14. During the course of the argument, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs would contend that admittedly, the defendant No.1 has not got any mail issue so far, but he has alienated. There is no prohibition to defendant No.1 to sell the property as per the deed. Mere alienation of the property will not give any cause of action to file the present suit. When the said plaint itself is barred by law that means vesting of the interest in the property is going to take place only when the defendant No.1 not begotten a mail issue and dies till then the vesting of the interest will not be there to the plaintiffs. When the said plaint itself is barred by law that means vesting of the interest in the property is going to take place only when the defendant No.1 not begotten a mail issue and dies till then the vesting of the interest will not be there to the plaintiffs. When property has not yet vested with plaintiff, no interest has been created in it, under such circumstances, suit is pre-matured and not maintainable in law. 15. Under the facts and circumstances, by looking into the whole of the pleadings, it clearly indicates that suit which has been filed, is pre-matured and without there being any cause of action, the cause of action arises if property exists at the time of death of defendant No.1 subject to the condition that he has not begotten a mail child. The said covenant is a condition precedent for vesting of interest in the property to the plaintiffs. This aspect of the matter has not been properly considered and appreciated by the Court below. Though the learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the proposition of law laid down in the said decisions is not applicable to the present facts of the case on hand and I am not having any deference of opinion with regard to the said proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court. 16. Under the said facts and circumstances, which has been averred by both the parties, the plaintiffs will get a right only when the interest on property is vested with them on fulfillment of covenant, till the covenant is not satisfied or fulfilled, they will not get any interest in the property. In that light, there will not be any cause of action to file the suit for declaring that the said suit property belongs to them. In the light of the above discussions held above, rejection of I.A.No.III, is not justifiable and the same has to be set aside. Accordingly, Civil Revision petition is allowed and I.A.No.III is allowed and consequently, the plaint is rejected.