ORDER : V.SRISHANANDA, J. Heard Sri Suhas H.S. learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Chowdappa B. learned counsel for the respondents. The seventh defendant in O.S.No.1010/2022 is the revision petitioner assailing the correctness of the order passed in said suit dated 01.09.2023 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Doddaballapura, in rejecting the application filed by the revision petitioner under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC. 2. Facts in a nutshell, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition, are as under: Smt. Parvathamma and others filed suit with the following prayer in respect of the following property (hereinafter referred to as suit properties): "Wherefore the Plaintiffs are most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may Kindly be pleased to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants by granting the following relief's:- a. Grant for partition and separate possession of 1/6th each share to the plaintiffs No.1, 2 and 5 and 1/6th (One Sixth) joint share to the plaintiffs No.3 and 4 and 1/6h joint share to the plaintiffs No.6 to 8 in the suit schedule properties. b. To declare that the Sale Deeds and Gift Deed have existed in favour of the defendants with respect to the suit schedule properties are not binding on the plaintiffs. c. Award costs of the above suit and grant such relief or relief's as the situation demands to meet the ends of justice and equity. SCHEDULE Item No.1 All the piece and parcel of the property bearing Sy.No.157/10, measuring total extent of 0-03 guntas, situated at Konaghatta Village, Kasaba Hobali, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District which is bounded to the East by: Property of Ramappa West by: Property of C.K Krishnappa North by: Property of Thammanna South by: Property of Nanjegowda Item No.2 All the piece and parcel of the property bearing Sy. No. 240/4, measuring total extent of 0-02 guntas, situated at Konaghatta Village, Kasaba Hobali, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District which is bounded to the East by : Halla West by: Property of Veerabhadra North by: Property of Rajanna South by: Property of Venkategowda Item No.3 All the piece and parcel of the property bearing Sy.No.269/7, measuring total extent of 0-04guntas, situated at Konaghatta Village, Kasaba Hobali, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District which is bounded to the East by: Road West by: Property of Govinda North by: Property of Rajanna South by: Property of Govinda Item No.4 All the piece and parcel of the property bearing Sy.No.303/4, measuring total extent of 0.00.12 (4) guntas, situated at Konaghatta Village, Kasaba Hobali, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District which is bounded to the East by: Property of Rudrappa West by: Property of Subbanna North by: Property of Eeshwarappa South by: Property of Munianjinappa & Kuriyanna Item No.5 All the piece and parcel of the property bearing Sy.No.150/3, measuring total extent of 0-01 gunta, situated at Konaghatta Village,Kasaba Hobali, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District which is bounded to the East by: Private Property West by: Private Property North by: Private Property South by: Private Property Item No.6 All the piece and parcel of the property bearing Sy.No.165/1, measuring total extent of 1 acre 10 guntas, situated at Konaghatta Village, Kasaba Hobali, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District which is bounded to the East by: Property of Dasanora Anjinappa West by: Dinne Oni North by: Property of same Survey number South by: Property of Chandregowda Item No.7 All the piece and parcel of the property bearing Sy.No.133/1, measuring total extent of 2 acres 17 guntas, in that, an extent of 0-10 guntas, situated at Konaghatta Village, Kasaba Hobali, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District which is bounded to the East by: Property of Amruthappa West by: Halla North by: Kere Angala South by: Property of Krishnamurthy Item No.8 All the piece and parcel of the property bearing Sy.No.264/10, measuring total extent of 04.12 guntas, in that an extent of 01.04 guntas, situated at Konaghatta Village, Kasaba Hobali, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District which is bounded to the East by: Property of Munegowda West by: Property of Vijayakumar North by: Property of Munegowda South by: Property of Srinivasashetty Item No.9 All the piece and parcel of the property bearing Sy.No.259/7, measuring total extent of 0-12 guntas, in that an extent of 0-03 guntas, situated at Konaghatta Village, Kasaba Hobali, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District which is bounded to the East by: Property of Ramappa West by: Property of Chandrappa North by: Property of Venkategowda South by: Property of Seenappa Item No.10 All the piece and parcel of the property bearing Sy. No.322, measuring total extent of 2 acres 28 guntas, situated at Konaghatta Village, Kasaba Hobali, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District which is bounded to the East by: Property of Venkataramanashetty West by: Property of C.Rajanna North by: Property of Remaining Same Sy.No. South by : Halla Item No.11 All the piece and parcel of the property bearing Sy.No.286, measuring total extent of 0-04 guntas, situated at Konaghatta Village, Kasaba Hobali, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District which is bounded to the East by: Halla West by: Property of Ramanjinappa North by: Property of Papanna South by: Property of Krishnappa Item No.12 All the piece and parcel of the property bearing Sy.No.160/1, measuring total extent of 0-08.08 guntas, situated at Konaghatta Village, Kasaba Hobali, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District which is bounded to the East by : Property of Mylarappa West by: Road North by : Property of Ramappa South by Property of Ramappa Item No.13 All the piece and parcel of the property bearing Sy.No. 158/2, measuring total extent of 0-28 guntas, situated at Konaghatta Village, Kasaba Hobali, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District which is bounded to the East by : Property of Venkataramanappa West by : Road North by : Property of Munidyavappa South by : Property of Nanjegowda 3. Plaintiffs contended that they are the lawful and absolute joint owners in possession of the suit properties. They further contend that defendants No.1 to 4 belongs to the same family headed by late Muni Sanjeevappa, who is the common prepositor. The plaintiffs being the sharers, the transactions that were carried out by defendants No.1 to 4 without the consent of the plaintiffs, is nullity and not binding on them and sought to share the suit properties. 4. The seventh defendant, who is the purchaser of suit property, entered appearance filed written statement inter alia contending that there is a separation of material facts in the plaint and also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC to reject the plaint. 5. Said application was opposed by the plaintiffs by filing a detailed objection statement. Thereafter, the learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties and dismissed the application by impugned order. The correctness of the same is called in question in this revision petition. 6. 5. Said application was opposed by the plaintiffs by filing a detailed objection statement. Thereafter, the learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties and dismissed the application by impugned order. The correctness of the same is called in question in this revision petition. 6. Sri H.S.Suhas, learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contended that separation of material facts by the plaintiffs in the plaint would be sufficient enough to reject the plaint. 7. He would also contend that the property purchased by the seventh defendant is the property of the mother of the plaintiffs and therefore the very suit itself is not maintainable and sought for rejection of the plaint, which has not been properly appreciated by the Trial Judge in the court below and sought for allowing the revision petition. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents supports the impugned order. 9. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the suit is one for partition. 10. The defence taken by the seventh defendant needs to be established before the court below by placing necessary oral and documentary evidence on record. 11. Merely on the say of seventh defendant as to the nature of property would not be sufficient enough to reject the plaint at the threshold. 12. Taking note of the fact that the contentions urged by the defendant needs to be thrashed out by placing necessary oral and documentary evidence on record, rejection of the application filed by the seventh defendant is just and proper, which requires no interference in this revisional jurisdiction. 13. Accordingly, the following: ORDER The revision petition stands dismissed.