JUDGMENT 1. These three civil revision petitions under article 227 of the Constitution of India have been filed by different defendants in O.S.No.49 of 2019. 2. These revision petitions sought for rejection of plaint in O.S.No.49 of 2019 in terms of Order VII Rule 11 CPC and as the learned trial Court dismissed those applications, they have come up with these revision petitions. 3. Defendant No.1 in the suit filed I.A.No.404 of 2019 seeking for rejection of plaint and the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada dismissed the same by an order dtd. 5/3/2020. Aggrieved by it, defendant No.1 filed C.R.P.No.1062 of 2020. 4. Defendant No.3 filed I.A.No.495 of 2019 seeking for rejection of plaint and that was dismissed by learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada by an order dtd. 5/3/2020. Aggrieved by it, defendant No.3 filed C.R.P.No.1025 of 2020. 5. Defendant Nos.4,5 and 6 filed I.A.No.333 of 2019 seeking for rejection of plaint and that was dismissed by learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada by an order dtd. 5/3/2020. Aggrieved by it, they filed C.R.P.No.1063 of 2020. 6. In all these revision petitions, respondent No.1 is the sole plaintiff in the suit. Remaining respondents are remaining defendants in the suit. 7. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Veera Reddy and learned counsel Sri I.Koti Reddy and learned counsel Sri B. Samba Siva Rao appearing for revision petitioners and learned counsel Sri Chamarthy Gangadhar appearing for respondent No.1/plaintiff submitted arguments. 8. O.S.No.49 of 2019 is a suit filed by sole plaintiff as against six defendants as defendant Nos.1 to 6. Plaint schedule refers to item Nos.1 to 4 which are immovable properties. The relief claimed in the plaint is for partition of plaint schedule properties into four equal shares. One share is to be allotted for plaintiff and one share is to be allotted to defendant No.1 and two shares are to be allotted to defendant No.2. Division by metes and bounds and for costs and such other reliefs are prayed in the plaint. 9. The plaint averments are to the following effect: There was Sri Yalamanchili Venkata Subbaiah. All the plaint schedule mentioned properties belonged to him and he owned and possessed them during his life time. In a sound and disposing state of mind, he executed a registered will dtd. 6/5/1985. 9. The plaint averments are to the following effect: There was Sri Yalamanchili Venkata Subbaiah. All the plaint schedule mentioned properties belonged to him and he owned and possessed them during his life time. In a sound and disposing state of mind, he executed a registered will dtd. 6/5/1985. Under this will he had bequeathed certain extents of item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in favour of his daughter-in-law by name Seshamamba alias Seshamma. The husband of the legatee is Sri Y.Venkateswara Rao. 10. Though item No.4 of the plaint schedule was also owned and possessed by Sri Yalamanchili Venkata Subbaiah, he did not make it a part of the registered will referred above. 11. Under the above referred will Sri Yalamanchili Venkata Subbaiah bequeathed a part of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property in favour of defendant No.2. 12. For Sri Yalamanchili Venkata Subbaiah, there was only one son by name Sri Y. Venkateswara Rao. Smt. Seshamamba is wife of Sri Y.Venkateswara Rao. These spouses have three children namely Anjani Kumari, Vijaya Lakshmi/D2 and Kesava Rao. Among them, Sri Kesava Rao died during April 1985 and he had no children and his wife Udaya Lakshmi re-married another person and left the family without claiming any rights over the properties. Smt.Anjani Kumari died intestate on 29/9/2013. Smt. Anjani Kumari was survived by her daughter who is the plaintiff and her brother Sri A.Krishna Rao/defendant No.1. 13. In the plaint, it is further stated that Sri Y. Venkata Subbaiah, the original owner of these properties, died testate on 5/4/1996. On his death, his will dtd. 6/5/1985 came into operation. By virtue of the said will, his daughter-inlaw/Seshamamba and his grand-daughter/defendant No.2 became absolute owners of the properties as referred in the earlier paragraphs. 14. Smt. Seshamamba who got the properties under the will died intestate on 12/7/2009. During her life time, she did not execute any deed of alienation and did not execute any testament concerning item Nos.1,2 and 3 of the plaint schedule properties. On death of Seshamamba, the properties she got under the will were succeeded by her husband/Venkateswara Rao and daughters Smt. Anjani Kumari and defendant No.2. These successors have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties. 15. As said earlier, Smt. Anjani Kumari died intestate on 29/9/2013 survived by plaintiff and defendant No.1 as successors. On death of Seshamamba, the properties she got under the will were succeeded by her husband/Venkateswara Rao and daughters Smt. Anjani Kumari and defendant No.2. These successors have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties. 15. As said earlier, Smt. Anjani Kumari died intestate on 29/9/2013 survived by plaintiff and defendant No.1 as successors. Therefore, plaintiff succeeded all the estate left by her mother along with defendant No.1 and accordingly plaintiff and defendant No.1 have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of item Nos.1 to 4 of the plaint schedule properties along with defendant No.2 to the extent mentioned earlier. It is in these circumstances, plaintiff sues for 1/4th share in the plaint schedule properties. 16. Plaint then refers to certain other suits which have got connection with the issues of this estate. It is stated in the plaint that defendant No.2 filed O.S.No.181 of 2014 before learned XIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada wherein she sought for declaration that she is absolute owner of the properties mentioned in that suit. In that suit, she alleged a will dtd. 3/6/2009 executed by her mother/Smt. Y.Seshamamba. This plaintiff was made one of the defendants. 17. Defendant No.2 also filed O.S.No.465 of 2014 before learned VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada whereunder she sought for partition of properties mentioned in that plaint. In that suit also, this plaintiff is made one of the defendants. 18. In the plaint, it is stated that plaintiff and defendant No.1 being siblings, defendant No.1 prevailed over her and obtained her signatures on two vakalats promising that in the above referred two suits, he would safeguard and protect her rights and interests. It is specifically pleaded that plaintiff never signed any affidavits, pleadings or written statements in the above referred two suits and defendant No.1 in violation of the promise made to her was not informing the progress of the above referred two suits and that caused suspicion in the mind of the plaintiff. Plaintiff got the facts enquired into and came to know that her brother/defendant No.1 filed written statements in the above referred suits by forging the signatories of this plaintiff. Defendant No.1 did it in collusion with defendant No.2 for unlawful gain. Plaintiff got the facts enquired into and came to know that her brother/defendant No.1 filed written statements in the above referred suits by forging the signatories of this plaintiff. Defendant No.1 did it in collusion with defendant No.2 for unlawful gain. It is further stated that defendant No.2 who filed above referred two suits got them dismissed as not pressed on 30/7/2018 and 6/8/2018 respectively and that was done without notice and knowledge of this plaintiff. Defendant No.2 for not pressing those suits was gifted with properties by defendant No.1 under a registered gift deed concerning item No.2 of the present plaint schedule. In the said gift deed, defendant No.1 claimed exclusive ownership of that item of the property which is incorrect. 19. Defendant No.1 is not the exclusive owner of item No.4 of the plaint schedule, yet, he sold out 121 Square Yards out of it to defendant No.3 and another 121 Square Yards to defendant No.4 under two separate registered sale deeds executed on 10/9/2014. Defendant No.1 resorted to this activity claiming that there was an unregistered will executed by his maternal grandfather/ Sri Y.Venkateswara Rao in his favour which is incorrect. Therefore, plaintiff ignores the said two sale deeds as they are null and void in the eye of law. It is further stated that another extent of 242 Square Yards in item No.4 of plaint schedule was sold by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.5 under a registered sale deed dtd. 29/9/2014. Thereafter, that property was sold out by defendant No.5 in favour of defendant No.6 under a registered sale deed dtd. 19/9/2018. 20. It is further stated that defendant No.1 filed O.S.No.381 of 2019 before learned Additional Junior Civil Judge seeking for permanent injunction as against plaintiff and others concerning item No.3 of the plaint schedule. 21. Plaint further narrates the facts to the effect that plaintiff has been in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties along with defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the several documents executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of rest of the defendants are invalid and do not bind the plaintiff and despite those alienations, possession continued to be with plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 concerning plaint schedule properties. In the above referred circumstances, plaintiff demanded for partition and that was not conceded to and therefore, she had filed this suit for partition. 22. In the above referred circumstances, plaintiff demanded for partition and that was not conceded to and therefore, she had filed this suit for partition. 22. From the very reading of the plaint, one could visualize the potential points that would fall for trial requiring the plaintiff to prove that the two written statements filed by her in the earlier two suits were out of a fraud played on her by her sibling/D1; that the alienations in favour of defendant Nos.3 to 6 do not bind her. Plaintiff will also have to show that law does not require her seeking any declaration against those known alienations in a suit for partition and that she is entitled to pray the Court to ignore such alienations. 23. It is this plaint that is sought to be rejected by the defendants. In all the applications for rejection of plaint filed by the various defendants in the suit, they claimed that: The suit is barred by limitation by virtue of article 59 of schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963. That the various alienations referred in the plaint took place in the year 2014 and the present plaint was filed in the year 2019 which was beyond three years from the date of those alienations under registered documents and therefore the suit is barred by limitation and hence plaint has to be rejected. The other contention raised is that this very plaintiff filed her written statement in O.S.No.181 of 2014 and O.S.No.465 of 2014 wherein she admitted the various alienations and now she turned around and questions those alienations. She cannot take such stand as she is estopped from pleading contrary and therefore plaint has to be rejected. Defendant Nos.3 to 6 are bonafide alienees and they are not necessary parties and for mis joinder of parties, the plaint has to be rejected. Defendant No.1 in his petition for rejection of plaint propounded a partition deed dtd. 5/5/2014 and stated that plaintiff suppressed it and therefore with false cause of action the suit is filed and therefore plaint had to be rejected. The plaint is vexatious as it claims joint possession for plaintiff along with her family members while the truth is that under various alienations referred above, she ceased to hold possession of those properties. 5/5/2014 and stated that plaintiff suppressed it and therefore with false cause of action the suit is filed and therefore plaint had to be rejected. The plaint is vexatious as it claims joint possession for plaintiff along with her family members while the truth is that under various alienations referred above, she ceased to hold possession of those properties. Without being in joint possession, a suit is laid wherein the property was undervalued and incorrect Court fee was paid and therefore plaint has to be rejected. 24. Learned trial Court considered all these contentions and stated that a reading of the plaint discloses a cause of action and in the given facts and circumstances, the suit filed for partition cannot be said to be barred by limitation and that the other grounds urged do not fall within the ambit of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. In that view of the matter, the learned trial Court dismissed all the applications and refused to reject the plaint. 25. In all these revision petitions, all those contentions that were raised before the learned trial Court have been reagitated here. As against these contentions of revision petitioners, for respondent No.1/plaintiff, it is argued that the registered partition deed dtd. 5/5/2014 alleged by defendant No.1 is not part of allegations in the plaint. That the plaintiff had to sue because of the caveat filed by defendant No.1 and that the contentions raised by defendants are matters for trial and not points for rejection of a plaint. That the learned trial Court appropriately considered the facts and law and dismissed the applications and refused to reject the plaint and there is no warrant for this Court to interfere in these revisions. 26. Arguing for defendant No.3/revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.1025 of 2020, learned counsel Sri I.Koti Reddy submits that the rights of bonafide purchasers who acted basing on the written statement averments of the very plaintiff in the other suits is unnecessarily brought to this litigation and in the event the suit being decreed, it would adversely affect his rights and such plaint cannot be countenanced and has to be rejected. 27. 27. In the light of the facts available on record and the rival submissions of learned counsels on both sides, the point that falls for consideration is: "Whether plaint in O.S.No.49 of 2019 was liable to be rejected but the learned trial Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested with it and thereby it occasioned injustice requiring interference?" POINT:- Rejection of plaint is essentially guided by the legislative mandate contained in Order VII Rule 11 CPC which is extracted below: Order VII Rule 11 CPC:- 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-papers 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 from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp papers, 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. While considering a plaint for evaluation as to its sustainability or rejection in certain circumstances, the powers of the Court are not circumscribed by what is provided by Order VII Rule 11 CPC and the inherent power that is available with the Court under Sec. 151 CPC is available and on a meaningful reading of a plaint and overcoming the clever drafting of a plaint if a Court finds the litigation vexatious the same could be rejected is the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in T.Arivandandam V. T.V.Satyapal., (1977) 4 SCC 467 . 28. 28. Defendant Nos.3 to 6 are not members of the family of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2. The grievance of defendant Nos.3 to 6 in the suit is essentially about item No.4 of the plaint schedule. They seek for rejection of the plaint. That raises a question as to whether a plaint in part can be rejected or not. The law is that rejection of a plaint in part is impermissible since so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Roop Lal Sathi V. Nachhattar Singh Gill., (1982) 3 SCC 487 . It may also be noticed that if a plaint does not disclose a cause of action as against one of the defendants, then the plaint can be rejected as against such defendant against whom the plaint failed to disclose cause of action as was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society V. Ponniamman Educational Trust., (2012) 8 SCC 706 . According to the alienee defendants who are not members of the alleged joint family, roping them in the suit resulted in mis joinder of parties or mis joinder of cause of action and therefore the suit is barred by law in terms of Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC and therefore the plaint has to be rejected. There is no legal force in this contention. Mis joinder of parties and mis joinder of cause of action are considered as procedural objections and discretion rests with the Court trying the suit to determine the various methods by which it could try such suits and their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India categorically held that mis joinder of parties or mis joinder of causes of action cannot be considered for rejection of plaint in Prem Lala Nahata V. Chandi Prasad Sikaria., (2007) 2 SCC 551 . 29. The revision petitioners relying on the conveyances of the year 2014 contend that plaint challenges validity of such alienations and those alienations are to the knowledge of the plaintiff. 29. The revision petitioners relying on the conveyances of the year 2014 contend that plaint challenges validity of such alienations and those alienations are to the knowledge of the plaintiff. As this plaintiff admitted the truthfulness of such alienations in the written statements filed by her in the other two suits in O.S.No.181 of 2014 and O.S.No.465 of 2014 and therefore she ought to have filed the suit within three years from the date of such alienations but she had filed the suit five years after such alienations and therefore the suit is barred by limitation. They also contend that by virtue of doctrine of promissory estoppel she cannot plead contrary to what was pleaded in her written statement and therefore the present plaint has to be rejected. 30. This argument is rested on article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1965. This principle is applicable in cases where an instrument is sought to be cancelled or set aside, the period of three years limitation is prescribed. Relief claimed in the plaint has not asked for any cancellation or setting aside of any sale deeds or gift deeds or other instrument or documents. Suit is filed only for partition. It is undisputed before the learned trial Court as well as here that in a given case, when the sharers are living together, as and when they desire to have their shares divided, they could sue and the normal rule is that for laying such a suit for partition, there is no period of limitation. In the present plaint, plaintiff claims joint possession and enjoyment. Defendants deny that as false. Thus, there is a disputed question of fact even if it is assumed that the plaintiff was excluded from joint family property, to enforce a right to a share in such property, suit could be laid within 12 years from the time the exclusion becomes known to the plaintiff. This is what is provided under article 110 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963. Even when the arguments advanced for revision petitioners is accepted that the plaintiff was ousted from possession, the period of Limitation of 12 years is not exhausted from the time of those registered instruments that had come into existence in the year 2014. Since the suit was filed within 12 years from the date of those alleged instruments, it is well within time. Since the suit was filed within 12 years from the date of those alleged instruments, it is well within time. Learned counsel for revision petitioners failed to indicate to this Court any further principle governing this limitation. Be it noted, a reading of the plaint by itself, rightly noticed by the learned trial Court, there is no occasion for the Court to come to a definite finding that the suit is barred by limitation. Therefore, the argument advanced on behalf of the revision petitioners on the plank of doctrine of limitation is absolutely incorrect on facts and law. The observations of the trial Court are unnecessarily questioned in this revision in that regard. 31. Coming to the contention based on promissory estoppel the same being a rule of evidence in terms of Sec. 115 to 117 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that may fall for consideration in the trial of the suit and is not a bar under law for instituting the suit itself. Therefore, the contention is negatived. 32. It is argued for revision petitioners that the rights of bonafide purchasers cannot be nullified and the plaintiff having not sued for any declaration to avoid those instruments, the plaint is liable to be rejected. Thus, according to this argument, for failure to seek appropriate relief the plaint has to be rejected. This was seriously contested by the learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff based on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sajjan Singh V. Jesvir kaur.,2023 LiveLaw (SC) 517 That was also a case where defendants in the suit sought for rejection of plaint on the ground that plaintiff failed to seek for an appropriate prayer to declare sale deeds as illegal, null and void and failed to pay Court fee with reference to such declaration. Answering that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is categorical in its terms and held that failure to ask an appropriate prayer in the suit is a matter for final decision in the suit and such contention cannot be an issue to be considered in an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Revision petitioners could not repel this proposition. It is in these circumstances, the contention of revision petitioners that the plaint is to be rejected for want of appropriate prayer is negatived. 33. Revision petitioners could not repel this proposition. It is in these circumstances, the contention of revision petitioners that the plaint is to be rejected for want of appropriate prayer is negatived. 33. It may be stated that learned counsels on both sides fairly admitted that the Court while considering as to whether a plaint has to be rejected or not it is entitled to see only the plaint and its averments and the documents filed along with it and anything extraneous to it cannot form part of consideration. 34. Another contention raised by learned counsel for revision petitioners is that the cause of action pleaded in the plaint is false to the knowledge of the plaintiff and that falsity could be seen from the admissions she made in the written statements filed by her in the earlier suits and therefore the plaint has to be considered as one that is frivolous and such plaint shall be nipped at the bud. This Court is unable to accede to these submissions on facts and law. As a matter of fact, plaint itself avers the existence of earlier two suits and avers as to how she was defrauded by defendant No.1 in this suit and specifically avers that she did not sign the pleadings in the other written statements of those suits. All that may by true or false but those matters are for decision only in the suit. False cause of action and failing to disclose a cause of action are totally different. A plaint can be rejected only when it failed to disclose cause of action and not when it averred a false cause of action. A false cause of action is one that should meet its consequences at the end of the suit and a false cause of action by itself cannot be a ground to terminate the plaint. That has been the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Dahiben V. Arvindh Bhai Kalyanji Banusali., (2020) 7 SCC 366 . Cause of action means every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his or her right to judgment. Right to sue accrues when the cause of action arises. It means a plaintiff could institute a suit with certain rights asserted in the plaint complaining the infringement of such rights or clear threat of infringement to such rights. Right to sue accrues when the cause of action arises. It means a plaintiff could institute a suit with certain rights asserted in the plaint complaining the infringement of such rights or clear threat of infringement to such rights. In the facts at hand, the averments in the plaint are to the affect that the right to sue for partition claimed by the plaintiff rested on an assertion that Seshamamba died intestate and thereafter Anjani Kumari died intestate and as such plaintiff succeeded to the estate. If this is false, such falsity has to be assessed on evidence adduced in the suit and not here. One can never say that those assertions in the plaint do not disclose a cause of action. 35. All the contentions raised by the revision petitioners are contentions that are to be taken up for defence and they are totally immaterial for consideration while considering their prayer for rejection of a plaint. Despite the appropriate observations on part of the trial Court, these revision petitioners have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court without any basis on facts and law. Trial Court properly assessed the principles of facts and law and the orders impugned do not require any interference as they never occasioned any injustice to anyone. 36. Point is answered against the petitioners. 37. In the result, Civil Revision Petition No.1025 of 2020 is dismissed. Civil Revision Petition No.1062 of 2020 is dismissed. Civil Revision Petition No.1063 of 2020 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.