ORDER : V. SRISHANANDA, J. 1. Heard Sri.B.Manjunath, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Sahnmugam Yadav, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. 2. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 are the revision petitioners challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short) in O.S.No.1303/2022. 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.1303/2022 came to be filed by plaintiff/respondent No.1 with the following relief in respect of following immovable properties: PRAYER Wherefore, the plaintiff above named humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass a judgment and decree against the defendants in the following terms: a. To partition the suit schedule item No.1 to 3 properties by metes and bounds and allot plaintiffs 1/3 rd share and put the plaintiff into his independent peaceful physical possession over the suit schedule item Nos.1 to 3 properties; b. To issue permanent injunction against the defendant Nos.2 to 4, their legal heirs, attornees, representative, contractors, coolies, labourers or any other person/s claiming right or authority under them and restraining the defendants No.2 to 4 from alienating or creating any third party rights over the suit schedule item No.1 to 3 properties in any manner. c. To declare that the gift deed executed by Sri.Hanumaiah in favour of defendant No.3 and 4 in respect of item No.2 and the said gift deed was allegedly registered as document No.YAN- 1-10756/2018-19 in Book-I, stored in CD No.YAND704, registered on 20.02.2019 in the office of the jurisdictional Senior Sub Registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru is not binding on the plaintiff in any manner. d. To award the costs of the proceedings, e. To pass such other order/s as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant in the fact and circumstances of the case. SCHEDULE PROEPRTIES ITEM No.1: all that piece and parcel of the property bearing Khaneshumari No.31, measuring East to West: 48 feet, North to South: 70 feet, totally measuring 3360 Sq. Feet, situated at Gantiganahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru and bounded on: East by: Approach road West by: Remaining portion of land belonging to Sri.Ramaiah North by: Road South by: Remaining portion of land belonging to Sri.Ramaiah Item No.2: All that piece and parcel of the property bearing Khaneshumari No.31, totally measuring 508.15 Sq. Feet, situated at Gantiganahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru and bounded on: East by: Approach road West by: Remaining portion of land belonging to Sri.Ramaiah North by: Road South by: Remaining portion of land belonging to Sri.Ramaiah Item No.2: All that piece and parcel of the property bearing Khaneshumari No.31, totally measuring 508.15 Sq. Meters, situated at Gantiganahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru and bounded on: East by: Road West by: Property of H. Ramaiah North by: road South by: Property of Venkataramanappa Item No.2: All that piece and parcel of the property bearing site Gramapanchayath Khatha No.30/30, vacant site No.30, measuring East to West 40 feet, North to South 60 feet, totally measuring 2400 Sq. Feet, situated at Gantiganahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru and bounded on: East by: Road and property of H.G.Sunil Kumar and H.G.Anil Kumar West by: Government Property North by: Property of H. Ramaiah South by: Property of Venkataramanappa 3.2. Plaintiff contended that during the lifetime of father of the plaintiff Munithimmaiah, there was a partition between Munithimmaiah, Hanumaiah, plaintiff and Shankarappa. 3.3. But in the said oral partition, only agricultural lands were divided and in respect of the house property, there was no division. After the death of father of the plaintiff, there was a demand for share in the suit properties but defendants failed to comply the demand made which necessitated the plaintiff to file the suit. 3.4. Cause of action in paragraph No.21 reads as under: “The cause of action for the suit has arose on 25.04.2022, 15.05.2022 and on 15.06.2022 and on 15.06.2022 when the plaintiff demanded the defendants to allot his share and also as and when the defendants tried to dispose off the suit schedule properties to the third parties and on subsequent dates within the territorial limits of this Hon’ble Court.” 4. Pursuant of the suit summons, defendants entered appearance and filed written statement contending that there was a panchayath parikath and as per the panchayath parikath, plaintiff has also got a share and the present suit is filed with avariciousness to grab the individual property of the defendants and thus, sought for rejection of the plaint. 5. Application filed by the defendants were opposed by the plaintiff while filing written objections. 6. 5. Application filed by the defendants were opposed by the plaintiff while filing written objections. 6. Learned Trial Judge after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by impugned order dated 09.01.2024, dismissed the said application inter alia holding in paragraph number 11 to 14 as under: “11. Further the plaintiff has produced Copy of registered Gift deed dated 20-02-2019 executed by Late Hanumaiah and his wife defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 & 4 in respect of the property in Kaneshumari Katha No.31 totally measuring 508.15 Sq meters with house. The said property is the Item No.2 of the suit schedule property. As per katha extract Item No.2 is standing in the name of defendant No.3 & 4. 12. As per plaintiff Munithimmaiah died intestate on 11.08.2006 leaving behind his children to succeed his estate. Later the children of Munithimmaiah have entered into the oral partition in respect of agricultural properties, but they have not divided the suit schedule properties till today. During the life time of Hanumaiah, the plaintiff has demanded to effect partition and his legitimate share over the suit schedule properties. But he has been postponing to allot share of plaintiff. Later Hanumaiah by colluding with defendant No.3 who is his wife, as executed Gift Deed dated: 20.02.2019 in favour of defendants No.3 & 4 in respect of item No.2 of the suit schedule properties. Till today there is no partition of the suit schedule properties among the plaintiff and defendants. 13. But according to defendant No.2 to 4 suit schedule properties are self acquired properties of late Hanumaiah and defendants No.3 & 4. The joint family properties have already been partitioned in the year 2005 by their grandfather during his life time. The suit schedule properties have been purchased by the father of defendants No.3 & 4 and the same is within the knowledge of plaintiff in the year 2005 itself. However with regard to the partition in the year 2005 as alleged by the defendant No.3 & 4 full fledged evidence is required. Further the plea of plaintiffs is that the suit schedule properties were purchased in the name of Hanimaiah out of joint family funds. The Said fact has be proved by the plaintiff during trial by producing cogent evidence and documents. 14. Further the plea of plaintiffs is that the suit schedule properties were purchased in the name of Hanimaiah out of joint family funds. The Said fact has be proved by the plaintiff during trial by producing cogent evidence and documents. 14. As per defendants the plaintiff has not included all the joint family properties in the suit. However the defendant No.2 to 4 have to establish the same during trial by producing cogent evidence and documents. It is alleged by the defendant No.2 to 4 that the partition of joint family properties was held in 2005, the grandfather of defendants died in they year 2006. The plaintiff kept quit all these years and residing in the same village and he has all knowledge about the suit schedule property. After lapse of 17 years from the date of partition the plaintiff has come up with present suit which is barred by limitation and there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the above suit. However it is pertinent to note that as per plaintiffs they have entered into the oral partition in respect of agricultural properties, but they have not divided the suit schedule properties till today. During the life time of Hanumaiah, the plaintiff has demanded to effect partition and hisegitimate share over the suit schedule properties. But he has been postponing to allot share of plaintiff.” 7. Being aggrieved by the same, learned counsel for defendant Nos.1 to 4 have filed the present revision petition. 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that learned Trial Judge did not understand the scope of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC inasmuch as when there is a clear admission by the plaintiff in the plaint itself about the prior partition, second suit for partition was per se not maintainable and thus, sought for allowing the revision petition. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order. 10. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 11. On such perusal of the material on record, there is no suppression of the earlier oral partition by the plaintiff inasmuch as plaintiff himself has stated in the plaint about the earlier oral partition. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order. 10. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 11. On such perusal of the material on record, there is no suppression of the earlier oral partition by the plaintiff inasmuch as plaintiff himself has stated in the plaint about the earlier oral partition. But according to the plaintiff, the said oral partition was restricted only to the agricultural properties and not to the house properties. 12. Whether at all the earlier oral partition also mentions about the individual properties said to have been acquired by the individuals of joint family to be retained by such members or not cannot be decided by holding a mini trial at the time of considering the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. 13. Further, the grounds urged in the application in support of the affidavit has been taken note of by the learned Trial Judge and has clearly opined that those contentions require adducing of evidence by the parties and to be established during the trial. 14. This Court concurs with the view taken by the learned Trial Judge having regard to the fact that there was no suppression of material facts by the plaintiff and with regard to the suit properties, there is no material on record including the panchayath parikath filed by learned counsel for the respondent, wherein there is no mention about the suit properties. 15. Thus, rejection of the application is just and proper which requires no interference in this revision. 16. Hence, following: ORDER i. Revision petition is dismissed ii. However, this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of any one of the contentions of the parties and they are at liberty to urge the same, in the trial, in accordance with law.