ORDER : V. SRISHANANDA, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Defendant No.2 in O.S No.52/2019 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channagiri, is the revision petitioner challenging the Order dated 10.06.2024 dismissing the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: Plaintiff in the suit namely Lakshmiranganatha.R is the son of Sri S.G.Ramachandrachar and Smt.Rathnamma (defendant No.1). Govindachar was the head of the family and common prepositus. Ramachandrachar had eight children namely, R.Narasimhamurthy, R.Rajamma, R.Srinivasa, R.Lakshmiranganatha (plaintiff), R.Lakshminarayana, R.Lakshmidevi, R.Amruthamma, R.Krishnamurthy. 4. Revision Petitioner further revealed that eighth child of Sri Ramachandrachar, namely R.Krishnamurthy had filed a suit earlier in O.S No.48/2014, which on contest came to be dismissed and there was no appeal against the said judgment and it has attained finality. 5. It is also found from the records that the present plaintiff sailed with the second defendant in the said suit by adopting the written statement. 6. However a second suit (present suit in O.S.No.52/2019) for partition came to be filed by another son by name Sri Lakshmiranganatha for the following relief in respect of the following properties. “THEREFORE, the plaintiff, prays that this Hon'ble court be pleased to pass a judgment and decree against the defendants for; a) Declaration that partition deed executed by the defendant No.2 and 4 with respect to the joint family properties is not binding on the share of the plaintiff and remaining members of the joint family. b) Further declaration that the alleged deed of relinquishment alleged to have been executed by defendant No.8 in favour of defendant No.1 is also not binding on the share of the plaintiff and remaining members of the joint family. c) Further declaration that, the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.48/2014 dated:27-10-2016 is also not binding on the share of the plaintiff and remaining members schedule properties by metes and bounds. e) Permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1, 2 and 4, their men, agents, servants or representatives from changing the nature of the suit schedule properties in any manner taking advantage of the previous fabricated documents at their own whims and fancy in any manner. e) Permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1, 2 and 4, their men, agents, servants or representatives from changing the nature of the suit schedule properties in any manner taking advantage of the previous fabricated documents at their own whims and fancy in any manner. f) For court cost and such other relief that this Hon'ble court deem fit to grant under the circumstances of the case in the ends of justice. DESCRIPTION OF SUIT PROPERTIES 'A' SCHEDULE PROPERTIES The land measuring 3 acres 33 guntas situated in Sy.No.21/2 of Haronahalli village, Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere District bounded by: East: PWD Road [Bhadravathi to Channagiri] West: Land belonging to Gowdru Basavarajappa North: Land belonging to the Ajjihalli Hanumanthappa and brothers South:Land belonging to Thippeshappa and Jayamurthy 2. The land measuring 6 acres 09 guntas situated in Sy.No.23/1 and 0.24 acres situated in Sy.No.23/3 which are adjacent to each other situated at Haronahalli village, Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere District bounded by: East: Land of M.B. Gowramma and M.N. Shivamurthy West: Sunigere to Haronahalli Road North: Garden land of Ajjihalli Prabhu [Babanna] South:Land of Hanumanthappa and brothers 3. The land measuring 3 acres 19 guntas situated in Sy.No.76/18P Erehalli village, Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere District bounded: East: Land of Narasoji Rao West: Land of Ittige Basavarajappa and Gowdru Mahadevappa North: Channagiri to Bhadravathi PWD Road South:Land of Pattanashetti Shivalingappa. 4. The land measuring 3 acres 20 guntas situated in Sy.No.4/17P1 of Erehalli village, Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere District bounded East: Road West: Land of Elentry North: Land of Masanikere Malleshappa South: Land of Hema and Suresh 5. The land measuring 3 acres 20 guntas situated in Sy.No.15 of Dondraghatta village, Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere District bounded by: East: Land of Gowramma and Hanumanthappa West: Land of Rekya Naika North:Land of M.N. Shivamurthy and Ajjihalli Basavarajappa South: Land of Yallamma W/o Dyamappa 6. The land measuring 3 acres 20 guntas situated in Sy.No.15 of Dondraghatta village, Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere District bounded by: East: Land of Gowramma and Hanumanthappa West: Land of Rekya Naika North:Land of M.N. Shivamurthy and Ajjihalli Basavarajappa South: Land of Yallamma W/o Dyamappa 6. The land measuring 3 acres 37 guntas situated in Sy.No.32/1 and 2 acres situated in Sy.No.32/6 which are adjacent to each other and situated at Dondaraghatta village, Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere District bounded by: East: Land of Rekya Naika West: Land of Kumbar Rudrappa North: Land of Ajjihalli Parameshwarappa and Suresh South: Land of Bajane Hanumanthappa and Yallamma W/o Dyamappa (NOT LEGIBLE) and 1 acre 33 guntas situated in Sy.No.36/5 which are adjacent to each other and situated at Dondaraghatta village, Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere District bounded by: East: Land of Kumbar Rudrappa West: Land of Ajjihalli Nagaraj North: Land of Shanmukhappa and Parameshwarappa South: Land of Eshwarappa 8. The land measuring 3 acres 20 guntas situated in Sy.No.52 and 3 acres situated in Sy.No.52/13B which are adjacent to each other and situated at Dondaraghatta village, Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere District bounded by: East: Land of Gowdru Mahadevappa and Papanna West: Land of Huchchappa, Erappa and Huchchappa North: Land bearing Sy.No.35 and Govindappa South:Land of Gurushanthappa and Manjunath 9. The land measuring 4 acres 23 guntas situated in Sy.No.35 of Dondaraghatta village, Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere District bounded by: East: land belongs to Govindappa and plaintiff's family property West: Land belonging to Kulume Krishnappa North: Land belongs to Eshwarappa South:Land belonging to family of plaintiff in Sy.No.52/13B of Dondaraghatta village. 'B' SCHEDULE PROPERTY House property bearing Khata No.3 measuring 15 ½ x 43 mtr. in the name of 1 st defendant and Khata No.4 measuring 15 ½ X 43 mtr. in the name of 2 nd defendant which are adjacent to each other situated in Haronahalli village, Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere Dist. consisting of RCC house red tiled house and Areca processing House with vacant place bounded by: East: House property and vacant site of Annapurnamma W/o Panchaksharaiah West: House and vacant site of Shankarachar North: PWD Road [Channagiri to Bhadravathi] South:House and vacant site of Bheemappa, Rangappa and Erappa 'C' SCHEDULE 1. Mahendra Bolero Jeep bearing No.KA-17-Z-1061 in the name of R. Srinivasa worth about Rs.9,00,000/-. 2. Farmatrack tractor bearing No.KA-17-4353 [New engine] and trailer KA-14-1335 worth about Rs.9,00,000/- 7. Revision petitioner is the second defendant in the said suit. Mahendra Bolero Jeep bearing No.KA-17-Z-1061 in the name of R. Srinivasa worth about Rs.9,00,000/-. 2. Farmatrack tractor bearing No.KA-17-4353 [New engine] and trailer KA-14-1335 worth about Rs.9,00,000/- 7. Revision petitioner is the second defendant in the said suit. 8. Cause of action paragraph in the plaint reads as under: “11. The cause of action for the suit has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court at Haronahalli village, Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere District on 06.04.2019 when the plaintiff approached the defendants and requested for partition and also when defendant No.2 and 4 disclosed the previous partition and relinquishment deeds and also on 28.09.2019 when the plaintiff again demanded partition and separate possession of his legitimate share.” 9. The revision petitioner/second defendant entered appearance and filed written statement and also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the plaint on the ground that the previous suit has been dismissed on merits, wherein, the very same plaintiff has sailed with the second defendant in opposing the suit in O.S No.48/2014 and therefore, the present suit is per se not maintainable. 10. Plaintiff opposed the said application and learned Trial Judge, by the impugned order, after hearing the parties, dismissed the said application. 11. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.2 is before this Court in this revision petition. 12. Sri Nandish Patil, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition vehemently contented that the approach of the Trial Court in dismissing the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and sought for admitting the revision petition for further consideration. 13. He would further contend that in the earlier suit i.e., O.S.No.48/2014 filed by one of the sons of Ramachandrachar, namely R. Krishnamurthy, a finding has been recorded that the suit properties are not ancestral properties and therefore second suit for partition is not maintainable. 14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that, assuming that the finding is just and proper and it has attained finality. 15. After death of Ramachandrachar and his wife Smt.Rathnamma, under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act all the children would get equal share by way of intestate succession and therefore the second suit filed by the Lakshmiranganatha being the heir of Ramachandrachar is perfectly maintainable. 16. 15. After death of Ramachandrachar and his wife Smt.Rathnamma, under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act all the children would get equal share by way of intestate succession and therefore the second suit filed by the Lakshmiranganatha being the heir of Ramachandrachar is perfectly maintainable. 16. Further it is contended that, if there is no pre-existing right, there could not be any relinquishment as is contented in the cause of action paragraph in the plaint. 17. Therefore, the suit has to proceed and rights of the parties are to be decided in a full fledged trial in accordance with law by allowing the parties to place necessary oral and documentary evidence on record. 18. At best, the second defendant would take it as a defence that the second suit is not maintainable and in the light of such defence, the Trial Court is bound to frame an issue on the doctrine of res judicata and parties are required to establish the same in accordance with law. 19. The right claimed by Narasimhamurthy is not the same right that is being now claimed by Lakshmiranganatha and therefore, rejection of the application filed by second defendant is just and proper which requires no interference in this revision petition. 20. Hence, the following: ORDER Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.