JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal suit is filed, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of C.P.C. against order and decree dated 14.06.2023 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram, in O.S. (SR) No. 614 of 2023. The plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants herein. 2. Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows: (i) The 1st defendant is father of appellants/plaintiffs, 2nd defendant and E.V. Meenakshi Devi. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 in the suit are the minor sons of the 2nd defendant. (ii) It is case of the plaintiffs that the suit properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of plaintiffs, defendant Nos.1 and 2 and E.V. Meenakshi Devi and they are entitled to a share in all the suit schedule properties as per succession. The 1st defendant managed the plaint schedule properties till 2017. Later, the 2nd respondent is looking after the plaint schedule properties, as the 1st defendant became sick and bed ridden. The plaintiffs, defendant Nos.1 and 2 and E.V. Meenakshi Devi are in joint and constructive possession of the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiffs came to know that the 1st defendant has alienated item Nos.1 to 5 of the plaint schedule properties in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4, who are the minor sons of the 2nd defendant, by ignoring the rights of the plaintiffs and E.V. Meenakshi Devi, under a registered Settlement Deed dated 29.06.2019 with document No. 4619/2019 of Sub- Registrar's Office, Bhimavaram, which is illegal and non est in the eye of law. (iii) It is further submitted that the matter was initially placed before elders for settlement. As the matter could not be settled amicably, on 24.01.2023 the plaintiffs got issued a registered legal notice to the defendants to cancel the registered Settlement Deed. No reply was issued by the defendants to the legal notice. Having left with no other alternative, the plaintiffs instituted the suit praying the Court to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants, for cancellation of the registered Settlement Deed dated 29.06.2019, to intimate the same to the Sub-Registrar's Office, Bhimavaram, and to award costs of the suit. Having left with no other alternative, the plaintiffs instituted the suit praying the Court to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants, for cancellation of the registered Settlement Deed dated 29.06.2019, to intimate the same to the Sub-Registrar's Office, Bhimavaram, and to award costs of the suit. But, the Court below rejected the plaint, by judgment dated 14.06.2023, holding that the suit relief under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 cannot be maintained by the plaintiffs without seeking to decide their rights over the plaint schedule properties. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs preferred the instant appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the trial Court ought not to have rejected the plaint without recording the evidence, conducting trial and considering the explanations made on re-submission of the plaint. The trial Court ought not to have come to the conclusion that the plaint is liable to be rejected at the threshold without registering in view of the objections taken by it under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which reads as under: “31. When cancellation may be ordered: (1) Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable and the Court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled.” (i) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the 1st defendant has no right to execute the registered Settlement Deed in respect of entire suit schedule properties, as the plaintiffs are also entitled to equal shares along with the 2nd defendant and their sister, E.V. Meenakshi Devi. It is also contended that the Settlement Deed is neither valid nor binding on the plaintiffs. It is specifically pleaded that the plaintiffs being coparceners in the joint family consisting of their father/1st defendant, brother/2nd defendant and sister/Meenakshi Devi, they are entitled to claim equal shares in the joint family properties. 4. It is also contended that the Settlement Deed is neither valid nor binding on the plaintiffs. It is specifically pleaded that the plaintiffs being coparceners in the joint family consisting of their father/1st defendant, brother/2nd defendant and sister/Meenakshi Devi, they are entitled to claim equal shares in the joint family properties. 4. The trial Court came to the conclusion that Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 does not give a right to sue all the persons for cancellation, except the person against whom a written instrument void or voidable is made and if such person has reasonable apprehension that such instrument is left outstanding may cause him serious injury and where a stranger to an instrument seeks to have it adjudged as void and to show that the instrument casts a cloud upon his title. The trial Court also came to the conclusion that without seeking for partition of the plaint schedule properties to establish their right over the plaint schedule properties, the plaintiffs cannot question the alienation made by their father for seeking cancellation of the Settlement Deed dated 29.06.2019 executed in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 who are minor sons of the 2nd defendant. 5. Learned counsel further submitted, the trial Court has relied on the observations made in Kasireddy Ramayamma Vs. Kasireddy Ramarao, 1999 (4) ALD 491 which is not applicable to the present case, as, in the present case, there is no partition of the coparcenary properties and without there being any partition among the siblings in the coparcenary properties, the 1st defendant cannot alienate the plaint schedule property in favour of defendant Nos. 3 and 4. Moreover, the plaintiffs are seeking to continue the plaint schedule properties as a coparcenary property and rejecting the plaint without even numbering the same is prima facie illegal. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs submitted that the properties purchased by the 1st defendant are from the income generated from the ancestral property and hence, the 1st and 2nd defendants had no independent right to settle any of the suit properties in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs submitted that the properties purchased by the 1st defendant are from the income generated from the ancestral property and hence, the 1st and 2nd defendants had no independent right to settle any of the suit properties in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4. Further, Manager or Kartha has no power to execute any settlement deed in respect of joint family properties without the consent of the other coparceners and therefore, the Settlement Deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 is void and not binding on the appellants/plaintiffs. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma & others, 2020 (9) SCC 1 to the effect that the right created in favour of daughter to inherit the property by birth by virtue of the amendment cannot be just denied especially when the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held in unequivocal terms that amendment to provisions of Hindu Succession Act will have retrospective effect. The learned counsel also placed reliance on a decision in Thamma Venkata Subbamma Vs. Rattamma & others, 1987 (3) SCC 294 , to the effect that a Kartha of Hindu joint family is not competent to execute settlement deed even in respect of his undivided interest without the consent of all the coparceners. 8. We have heard the counsel for appellants and perused plaint averments. In view of factual and legal submissions made, questioning the legal validity of settlement deed and also emphasising appellants/plaintiffs' mandatory right, their suit is maintainable in the light of Section 9 of C.P.C. Therefore, the Court below ought to have registered the suit and proceeded further by giving opportunity to both parties. It should be noted, the appellants/plaintiffs are asserting that the subject property is a coparcenary property wherein they have right, which factual assertion shall be tested on the anvil of trial. 9. In the result, the Appeal Suit is allowed and the impugned order dated 14.06.2023 passed by the III Addl. District Judge, Bhimavaram, in O.S. (SR) No. 614 of 2023, is set aside. The Court below shall number the suit and proceed further, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. No order as to costs. 10. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed.