ORDER : Heard, Mr. S. Rengasamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. T.S.R. Venkatraman, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This petition has been filed against the order passed in I.A.No.45 of 2013 in O.S.No.208 of 2012 dated 27.09.2013 on the file of the Principal District Court, Virudhunagar District. 3. The petitioner herein is the 3rd defendant and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the suit. The respondents 1 and 2 are minors represented through their next friend and grand father. They have filed a suit in O.S.No.208 of 2012 against their parents claiming 2/3rd share in the suit properties and prayed to pass a preliminary decree for partition of the suit properties and to allot 1/3rd share to each to the plaintiffs and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from alienating plaintiffs' 2/3rd share of the property. The petitioner herein has filed a petition in I.A.No.45 of 2013 to reject the plaint. The petition was dismissed by the learned Principal District Judge and as against the order, the petitioner herein has filed the present revision petition. 4. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that in the suit, the parents of the plaintiffs remained exparte and that one Saravanan Spinners Firm is doing business in manufacturing yarn and allied products in which the defendants 1 and 2 are partners. The defendants 1 and 2 has approached the petitioner Bank for a loan to the tune of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores only), while the loan was subsisting with the Bank of India, Rajapalam towards OCC. After scrutinization of the account, the petitioner Bank sanctioned the loan amount. For the loan amount, the respondents 1 and 2 and the FIRM has jointly executed relevant loan documents and have created an equitable mortgage over the 1st item of plaint A schedule and B schedule properties through a registered memorandum dated 22.11.2010. Thereafter as there was default in payment on 10.01.2012, the petitioner Bank has sent a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFASI Act to the defendants land 2 and the FIRM since the account had become NPA, thereby called upon them to repay the entire loan amount. As the borrower did not make full payment under the Act, the petitioner Bank took possession of the hypothecated movables and the mortgaged immovable properties on 02.07.2012 under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act. As the borrower did not make full payment under the Act, the petitioner Bank took possession of the hypothecated movables and the mortgaged immovable properties on 02.07.2012 under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act. The constructive possession of the properties is with petitioner Bank. 5. On the instigation of the respondents 1 and 2, the plaintiffs have filed this vexatious suit claiming partition of the schedule properties. Since the petitioner Bank has taken action over the secured assets under the SARFAESI Act the plaintiffs are barred from making any claim in the plaint under Section 17 of the Act before this Court and they have to file only appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. It is also stated that Item 1 of plaint A schedule property was purchased by the maternal grandfather of the plaintiffs one Perumal Raja. Hence, under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim any share over the same till the life time of their mother namely the second defendant. Any property inherited by Female Hindu is her separate properties under Section 14 and 29(A)(III) of Act 1/1990. 6. The plaint B schedule 1 to 3 properties were purchased by the 2nd defendant through three sale deeds as stated in the plaint. Since no co-parcenary property is left in the hands of 2nd defendant, partition of plaint B schedule 1 to 3 items by her will not arise. So till the life time of the 2nd defendant, the plaintiffs could not claim any partition over the same. 7. Item no.4 of the B schedule property was purchased by the 1st defendant through sale deed dated 31.08.2005 and he is enjoying the same as his separate property. The defendants 1 and 2 are the absolute owners of the schedule properties and they can encumber their properties without the consent of the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2 cannot be challenged by way of a partition suit and prayed to reject the suit. 8. On the side of the respondent, it is stated that the respondents have not challenged the authority of the Bank to invoke SARFAESI Act, 2002 relating to the properties of the defendants 1 and 2. 8. On the side of the respondent, it is stated that the respondents have not challenged the authority of the Bank to invoke SARFAESI Act, 2002 relating to the properties of the defendants 1 and 2. What is challenged in the suit is that the defendants under law have no right to mortgage the properties of the minor after Act 1/1990 and the DRT has no power to entertain the partition suit between Hindu parents and their children. When a grandfather buys a property and died intestate, the grandchildren are entitled to share as per the Hindu law. When the grandfather died 2nd defendant and the plaintiffs have constituted a HUF and acquired interest in co-parcenary. The plaintiffs are entitled to file a suit for partition after the Tamil Nadu Act 1/1990. 9. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the 1st defendant has filed a petition in W.P.No.17283 of 2012, before the Principal Seat, Madras and another petition in W.P.No.11394 of 2010 before this Court. The first defendant has set up his minor son and minor daughter to file the present partition suit by concealing the writ petitions filed by him before this Court and before the Principal Bench and filed an injunction application in I.A.No.606 of 2012 in O.S.No.208 of 2012 obtained interim Injunction order. Section 9 of CPC and Sections 34 and 35 of Securitisation Act clearly reveals that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any suit which is yet to be filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Only to cheat the Bank, the partition suit is filed. If the plaintiffs are really affected by the proceedings initiated by the revision petitioners under the Securitisation Act, then they should approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal to file appeal against the aggrieved the revision petitioner Bank. Till now no application was filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal even after the issuance of possession notice. 10. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the partition suit is not maintainable. In support of this contention, the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Singh v. Heeralal and others, reported in Civil Appeal No.9771 of 2013 is cited. 11. 10. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the partition suit is not maintainable. In support of this contention, the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Singh v. Heeralal and others, reported in Civil Appeal No.9771 of 2013 is cited. 11. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that the minors are involved in this case and 2/3rd share of the property belonged to the minor children and that they have filed the suit for partition and the respondents have no objection for any action against the share of their parents and that the mother got the property from the grandfather as per Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act and that the DRT cannot determine a partition suit and that an injunction order can be granted by the DRT Court and only the Civil Court have jurisdiction to entertain a partition suit and that though this case was for a partition filed by the minor children and the share of daughter cannot be mortgaged by the parents. As per the Act 39 of 2005, which came into force on 19.09.2005 permission of the Court was not obtained to mortgage the property and prayed the revision to be dismissed. 12. It is seen that the respondents claim partition under two grounds. One is that the property belong to the grandfather and the minors got share in the half properties and that the share of a female daughter in the HUF cannot be mortgaged by the parents. The grandfather is a maternal grandfather and that after his demise mother become the absolute owner. Other properties were purchased by the parents in the individual capacity, and the properties are not HUF properties. Even HUF properties can be mortgaged by the kartha of the family. The civil Courts have no jurisdiction to decide any issues under the SARFAESI Act. 13. In the recent Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court dated 05.10.2018 in ICICI Bank Limited v. Umakanta Mohapatra, Civil Appeal Nos.10251 – 10265 of 2018 arising out of SLP(C)Nos.16758 – 16772 of 2015, it is held as follows: “Despite several judgments of this Court, including a judgment by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha, as recently as on 30.01.2018, in Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Anr. Justice Navin Sinha, as recently as on 30.01.2018, in Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Anr. vs. Mathew K.C., (2018) 3 SCC 85 , the High Courts continue to entertain matters which arise under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI) and keep granting interim orders in favour of persons who are Non-Performing Assets (NPAs). The writ petition itself was not maintainable, as a result of which, in view of our recent judgment, which has followed earlier judgments of this Court, held as follows :- 18. We cannot help but disapprove the approach of the High Court for reasons already noticed in Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. And Another, (1997) 6 SCC 450 , observing :- “32. When a position, in law, is well settled as a result of judicial pronouncement of this Court, it would amount to judicial impropriety to say the least, for the subordinate courts including the High Courts to ignore the settled decisions and then to pass a judicial order which is clearly contrary to the settled legal position. Such judicial adventurism cannot be permitted and we strongly deprecate the tendency of the subordinate courts in not applying the settled principles and in passing whimsical orders which necessarily has the effect of granting wrongful and unwarranted relief to one of the parties. It is time that this tendency stops.” The writ petition, in this case, being not maintainable, obviously, all orders passed must perish, including the impugned order, which is set aside.” 14. For the above reasons, it is decided that the partition case is to be rejected. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order of the Court below in I.A.No.45 of 2013 is set aside. No Costs.