ORDER : V. SRISHANANDA, J. Heard Sri.G.A.Viswanatha Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt.Siri Rajashekar, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 2. Defendant Nos.12 to 14 are the revision petitioners challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in O.S.No.245/2012. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 3.1. A suit in O.S.No.245/2012 came to be filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 with the following prayer in respect of the following property (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’): PRAYER “WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass judgment and decree against all the defendants, declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for consequential reliefs be pleased to set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.179/2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge court, at Anekal and ot set aside the orders passed in FDP No.1/2009 and declared same is null and void and consequently registered final decree/partition deed dated 14.02.2012 stored in Book No.1, vide Document No.ABL-1-01076/2012-13 stored in CD No.ABLD106 dated 25.05.2012 is hereby declared as cancelled and for declaration, declaring that the registered agreement dated 26.07.2013 executed by the defendants No.12 to 14 in favour of Sri.P.Munireddy is not binding on the plaintiff and the same is declared as null and void and for consequential permanent injunction against all the defendants restraining them, their agents, supporters, workers, henchmen, coolies, contractors, family members, relatives or anybody claiming under them from interfering in any manner with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and grant such other reliefs together with cost of the suit as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, equity and law.” SCHEDULE 1. Agricultural land bearing Sy.No.52/2 measuring 0-34 guntas, together with watchman quarters and stone pillars barbed wire fence, bounded on: East by: land of Papamma, now land of Smt.Muniyamma West by: land of Chinnanna North by: Remaining land in the same survey number South by: Government halla. 2. Agricultural land bearing Sy.No.52/2 measuring 0-34 guntas, together with watchman quarters and stone pillars barbed wire fence, bounded on: East by: land of Papamma, now land of Smt.Muniyamma West by: land of Chinnanna North by: Remaining land in the same survey number South by: Government halla. 2. Agricultural land bearing Sy.No.52/2 measuring 0-33 guntas together with stone pillars barbed wire fence, bounded on: East by: Land of Papamma West by: Land of Chinnanna North by: Land of Hanumareddy, now land of Muniyamma South by: Remaining land in the same survey number Both properties situated at Maragondanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District. 3.2. In the plaint, it is contented that plaintiff is the owner of the suit property by virtue of the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in the said suit by name V. Krishnan now represented by his legal representative - Smt. Dr. Padmaja Krishnan. 3.3. Plaintiff further contended that agricultural lands bearing Sy.No.52/2 measuring 34 guntas and Sy.No.52/2 measuring 33 guntas situated at Maragondanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District which is the suit property by virtue of a sale deed dated 19.04.2007. 3.4. It is also contended that defendant Nos.1 to 11 delivered the vacant portion of the suit property on the date of registration of the sale and thereafter, plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 3.5. It is further contention of the plaintiff that revenue entries have been mutated and plaintiff is paying the taxes to the authorities. 3.6. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant Nos.12 to 14 entered appearance and contented that there was a partition suit and there is a decree which has also ended in Final Decree Proceedings and therefore, the present suit is not maintainable. 3.7. It was also contended that the vendor of the plaintiff did not have the right, title or interest to convey the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and therefore, suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. 3.8. Plaintiff opposed the said application by filing written objections. 4. Learned Trial Judge after entertaining the objections of the plaintiff on the application filed vide I.A.No.10, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and dismissed I.A.No.10 filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC by defendant Nos. 12 to 14. 5. 3.8. Plaintiff opposed the said application by filing written objections. 4. Learned Trial Judge after entertaining the objections of the plaintiff on the application filed vide I.A.No.10, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and dismissed I.A.No.10 filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC by defendant Nos. 12 to 14. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, it is defendant Nos.12 to 14 who have filed the present revision petition on following grounds: - That the order of the Trail court rejecting 1.A.No.10 filed under order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) of the code of civil procedure for rejection of plaint is oppose to law, pleadings, oral and documentary evidence on record. - That the Trail court failed to consider that originally the suit schedule properties bearing Sy. Nos. 52/2 measuring 34 guntas and Sy.No.52/2 measuring 33 guntas of Maragondanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk belonged to Nagi Reddy, purchased under a two registered sale deeds dated 1.7.1962 and sold in favour of Pilla Reddy the father of the defendants namely defendants 12 to 16. The Trail court failed to consider this said aspects while rejecting I.A.10 as impugned herein. - That the Trail court failed to consider that after the death of Pilla Reddy and his wife Chikkamma, the defendants 15 & 16 exclusively without the consent or knowledge of the defendants 12 to 14 or party to the sale deeds sold both the properties in favour of Krishnan under a registered sale deed dated 19.04.2007. The Trail court has not at all consider the said aspects while rejecting the application filed under order VII rule 11 (a) & (d) of the code of civil procedure. - That the Trail court failed to consider that after coming to know of the alienation the defendants 12 to 14 who are non-other than sister of the defendants No. 15 & 16 filed a suit in O.S.No.179/2007 seeking for partition of the said properties against the said Krishnan and his family members and defendant No. 15 & 16. At the time of filing the suit the defendants 12 to 14 got obtained an ex-parte order of temporary injunction, restraining the defendants 1 to 3 from alienating the suit schedule properties in favour of anybody. They have also complied order 39 rule 3A of the code of civil procedure in O.S.No.179/2004. At the time of filing the suit the defendants 12 to 14 got obtained an ex-parte order of temporary injunction, restraining the defendants 1 to 3 from alienating the suit schedule properties in favour of anybody. They have also complied order 39 rule 3A of the code of civil procedure in O.S.No.179/2004. The Trail court not at all looked into the said aspects while passing the orders. - That the Trail court failed to consider that after contest the learned judge decree the suit of the defendants 12 to 14 against Krishnan and defendants No. 15 & 16 decree the suit by allowing their respective shares. Thereafter initiated FDP proceedings in FDP.No.1/2009 by obtaining a final decree and their respective shares by drawing a sketch. The Trail court failed to looked into the said aspects while passing the orders impugned herein. - That the Trail court failed to consider that the properties in question are exclusive properties of their father Pilla Reddy. After his death his two daughter ie., the petitioners and their brothers succeeded to the said properties by devolution of law, All are entitle for equal shares. In the instant case brothers defendants 15 & 16 excluded the sisters ie., petitioners executed the sale deed in favour of Krishnan under a registered sale deed dated 19.4.2007. Inturn the said Krishnan sold the schedule properties in favour of the Plaintiff though there was an order of injunction from alienating the suit properties. It is well settled law during the pendency of the suit, if any alienation is made it operates as lis-pendency. The purchaser does not get any right, title or possession under section 52 of the transfer of property act. The Trail court instead of considering the said aspects rejected I.A.No.10 as impugned herein. - That the Trail court failed to consider that the defendants 12 to 14 obtained the final decree on 30.11.2011 since than the respective shareholders have been enjoying their respective shares. The plaintiff knowingly well that there was already a final decree drawn inspite of that purchased the properties in question under a registered sale deeds. The purchaser ie., the plaintiff does not derive any right, title, interest or possession over the properties in question. The Trail court has not at all consider the legal preposition of law while rejecting I.A.No. 10 as impugned herein.. The purchaser ie., the plaintiff does not derive any right, title, interest or possession over the properties in question. The Trail court has not at all consider the legal preposition of law while rejecting I.A.No. 10 as impugned herein.. - It is well settled law the properties in question are self-acquired properties of their father. After the death of father by devolution of law all of them are entitle for equal shares. In the instant case the defendants 15 & 16 having no exclusive right, title, interest or possession to sell the properties in question in favour of anybody. In the instant case the defendants 15 & 16 sold in favour of Krishnan and others and inturn the said Krishnan sold in favour of the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 29.8.2007, though there is an order of temporary injunction from alienating the suit schedule properties filed by them in O.S.No.179/2007, on the file of the senior civil judge and JMFC Anekal against Krishnan and others. In spite of that the said Krishnan sold in favour of the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 29.08.2007. The Trail court has not at all looked into the said aspects while passing the order impugned herein. - It is well settled law when the properties in question got by virtue of devolution of law, the other members of the family have to give their shares. In the instant case after the death of father and mother three daughters and two sons are entitle for equal shares. Sons alone have no right to sell the properties including the shares of the daughters. Under such circumstances if any alienation is made, the purchasers will not get any right, title, interest or possession. Therefore there is no cause of action for the purchaser to file a suit against the members of the joint family who are entitle for a shares in the properties in question. Therefore the very suit filed by the plaintiff is not at all maintainable in law. Without considering the said aspects the learned judge rejected the I.A.No.10 filed under order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) of the code of civil procedure. - The conclusions arrived at and inferences drawn by the Trail court is one sided and illegal. Therefore the very suit filed by the plaintiff is not at all maintainable in law. Without considering the said aspects the learned judge rejected the I.A.No.10 filed under order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) of the code of civil procedure. - The conclusions arrived at and inferences drawn by the Trail court is one sided and illegal. - Even otherwise the order of the Trail court is based on conjectures and surmises without considering the pleadings and documents on record. 6. Sri.G.A.Viswanatha Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that the Trial Court failed to note that the vendor of the plaintiff did not possess the entire right, title and interest in respect of the suit property to convey the same in favour of the plaintiff, as is contended in the plaint, by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 19.04.2007. 7. He would further point out that there was an order of injunction and despite the said order of injunction, alienation has taken place and therefore, plaintiff did not derive any right, title or interest over the suit property and sought for allowing the revision petition. 8. Per contra, Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel representing the contesting respondent submits that in the case on hand, Doctrine of lis pendens is not applicable in view of the fact that there was a collusive decree. 9. He would further contend that whether at all the vendor of the plaintiff had the right, title or interest to convey the suit property is a subject matter of suit which needs adducing of both oral and documentary evidence on behalf of the parties in the pending suit in a full-fledged trial. 10. Therefore, mini trial could not have been conducted before the Trial Court which has been rightly appreciated by the learned Trial Judge while passing the impugned order and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 11. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 12. On such perusal of the material on record, one Pilla Reddy, was the common prepositus of the suit property. The title is traced in the sale deed dated 19.04.2007 by the vendors of the plaintiff which is subject matter of the suit. 13. 11. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 12. On such perusal of the material on record, one Pilla Reddy, was the common prepositus of the suit property. The title is traced in the sale deed dated 19.04.2007 by the vendors of the plaintiff which is subject matter of the suit. 13. Whether at all the vendors had the title in respect of the suit property in conveying the suit property absolutely in favour of the plaintiff cannot be decided by the Trial Court at the time of holding or at the time of deciding the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC by holding a mini trial. 14. If ultimately, the vendors of the plaintiff did not possess the right, title or interest in respect of the suit property to convey the suit property in favour of the plaintiff, plaintiff would definitely fail in the suit. 15. It is for the Trial Court to record such a finding after the full-fledged trial. 16. Suffice to say that the material on record at the stage of deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC was not sufficient to reject the plaint at the threshold by exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. 17. Accordingly, the impugned order needs no interference that too in the limited revisional jurisdiction. 18. Hence, following: ORDER Revision petition is dismissed.