JUDGMENT : Sreenivas Harish Kumar, J. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.401/2011 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, have preferred this appeal challenging the order dated 26.04.2018, passed on I.A.No.V filed under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of CPC. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents at the stage of admission. 3. The parties are referred to with respect to their position in the suit. 4. The plaintiffs instituted a suit for partition in respect of 1 acre 34 guntas of land in Sy. No.64/2, Nallurahalli Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. The plaintiffs have pleaded that the suit property belongs to the joint family consisting of themselves and the defendants and therefore they have a share in it. Except defendant No.5, the other defendants did not file written statement. The trial Court framed the issues. At the time when PW.1 was being cross-examined, defendant No.5 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. Defendant No.5 stated that the plaintiffs' father, M. Narayana Reddy sold the suit property to him on 22.12.1988. Father was not alive when the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) was brought. He stated further that because the suit property had been alienated much before 20.12.2004, and that the father of the plaintiffs was not alive at that time, the suit would not be maintainable in law. The trial Court considered this application and came to conclusion that the plaint should be rejected exercising its power under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. 5. Assailing the findings of the trial Court on the said application, the learned counsel for the appellants argues that when the trial Court framed the issues and proceeded to record evidence of the witnesses and when PW-1 was being cross-examined, the trial Court should not have entertained the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. The trial Court should have completed the recording of evidence of all the witnesses and given a finding on all the issues. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sejal Glass Ltd. Vs. Navilan Merchants Pvt. Ltd., (2017) AIR SC 4477. The trial Court should have completed the recording of evidence of all the witnesses and given a finding on all the issues. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sejal Glass Ltd. Vs. Navilan Merchants Pvt. Ltd., (2017) AIR SC 4477. He also submits that though the father executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No.5, the possession of the suit land still remains with the joint family and therefore, cause of action is very much available and the suit is very much maintainable. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents argues that application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC can be filed at any stage. Just because PW-1 was cross-examined, if the suit is found to be not maintainable in view of alienation made by the plaintiffs' father in the year 1988, defendant No.5 can very much seek rejection of plaint. He argues that the trial Court has come to right conclusion to reject the plaint. 7. Having heard both the sides, we are of the view that the trial Court is justified in rejecting the plaint exercising its power under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. The admitted position is that M. Narayana Reddy, the father of the plaintiffs sold the suit property on 22.12.1988 to defendant No.5. It appears that M. Narayana Reddy died in the year 1994. Except the suit property, it appears that the other properties belonging to the joint family had been partitioned long back. If the suit property had been sold on 22.12.1988 itself, there is a clear bar to seek partition of this property in view of amendment brought to Section 6 of the Act. It clearly states that alienation made before the 20.12.2004 is saved. Moreover, the father, M. Narayana Reddy died in the year 1994 itself. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash vs. Phulavathi, (2016) AIR SC 769, the daughters do not become coparceners if the father was not alive on the day when the amended Act came into force. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sejal Glass Ltd.. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as below: "13. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sejal Glass Ltd.. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as below: "13. The Court is vested with a discretion under this order to deal with an issue of law, which it may try as a preliminary issue if it relates to the jurisdiction of the Court, or is a bar to the suit created for the time being in force. Obviously, this provision would apply after issues are struck i.e., after a written statement is filed. This provision again cannot come to the rescue of learned counsel for the respondent." 9. In the above judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has only held that discretion is vested with the Court to deal with application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. In Prakash vs. Phulavathi, it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if father was not alive on the date of commencement of Act, the daughter does not become a coparcener of joint hindu family. In that view, she cannot claim equal share, however, she has a share in the father's share carved out notionally. But this right is also not available to the plaintiffs in the instant case in view of suit property having been sold on 22.12.1988 itself. Though the trial Court could have as well proceeded to record evidence having framed issues, at the same time nothing prevents the Court from exercising its power under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC once it comes to conclusion that holding trial is a futile exercise. 10. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaint deserves rejection. If the plaint averments apparently indicate that plaintiffs have no right to seek partition, it can be said that plaint does not disclose cause of action. For these reasons, we concur with the findings given by the trial Court. We do not find any good reason to admit this appeal. Hence, appeal is dismissed.