ORDER : 1. Heard Sri. Santosh B.M. learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents. 2. Fifth defendant is the revision petitioner challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure in OS No.323/2016. 3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 3.1 A suit came to be filed in O.S. No.323/2016 by the first respondent on the file of Civil Judge at JMFC, Chikkaballapura. 3.2 In the suit, following prayer is made in the respect of following immovable properties (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit properties'). PRAYER Wherefore, the plaintiff prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a judgment and decree in his favor against the defendants:- a) Declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/5 th share in the plaint schedule property. b) For partition and separate possession by metes and bounds of plaintiff's such share be made under Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure. c) For costs and such other reliefs as this Hon'ble court may deems meet in the circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice and equity. SCHEDULE 1. Sy No. 41/12 measuring 0-04 guntas 2. Sy No. 41/13 measuring 0-02 guntas Both the properties are situated at Yalagere village, kasaba hobli, Chickballapur taluk and commonly bounded on:- East by : Land of Chikka Venkatarayappa West by : Land of Putta Reddy North by: Land of Mallenahalli Narayanappa South by: Gokunte 3.3 Plaintiff claimed that plaintiff and defendants no.1 to 4 are the children of one Maralasiddappa who was owning the suit property and died intestate. The revenue entries stood in the name of Maralasiddappa during his lifetime and after his death, it is the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 4 who being the members of Joint Hindu Family, were in joint possession and enjoyment of the property being the coparceners. 3.4 It is further contented that defendants No.1 to 4 colluding themselves, ignoring the legitimate site of the plaintiff, sold the suit property in favour of the fifth defendant. Plaintiff having noted the revenue entries, filed the suit seeking his legitimate share with a declaratory relief that the sale deed executed by defendants No.1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff would not bind the rights of the plaintiff. Plaintiff having noted the revenue entries, filed the suit seeking his legitimate share with a declaratory relief that the sale deed executed by defendants No.1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff would not bind the rights of the plaintiff. 3.5 Pursuant to the suit summons, fifth Defendant entered appearance filed written statement also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation and there is no cause of action to file the suit. Said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing detailed written objections. 3.6 Learned Trial Judge after hearing the parties, dismissed the application filed by the defendant inter alia holding in paragraphs under the caption "REASONS" as under : REASONS The suit is one for partition and separate possession wherein in para No.6 of the plaint he has stated that, he noticed the name of defendant suit schedule No.5 pertaining to properties and he learnt that, the same created is in revenue documents without his knowledge and revenue the basis of on documents the deeds have been created in the name of defendant No.5 and by going through the said averments it is not clear when the plaintiff came to know about the execution of deeds in favour of defendant No.5 and further it is not the contention of defendant No.5 who has filed the present application that, plaintiff is also one of the signatory to the sale deed executed in his favour and for that reason at this stage the court cannot arrive at the conclusion that, whether the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.5 is a valid document, void or voidable document and the same can be considered only after leading the evidence and further the plaint averments clearly discloses that, the plaintiff has cause of action to file this suit and for that reason the contention of defendant No.5 that the plaint does not disclose cause of action is not tenable. Further the defendant No.5 in his application has taken contention that, the suit is barred by law of limitation for the reason that, he has purchased suit schedule property in the year 1989 and suit is filed in the year 2016 i.e. after lapse of 27 years, but however the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts and the same cannot be decided without considering evidence lead by the parties and the said argument is supported by learned Advocate for defendants who has relied on the Judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in RSA No.438/2009 between Mr.Jagadish Poonja Vs South Canara Hotel and others dtd. 12.3.2015 and in para No.29 the Hon'ble High court has held, 'when in the plaint the plaintiff specifically avers that the suit is filed within the time of limitation and hence the suit is in time, the court cannot embark defendant U/o.7 rule 11(d) to find out whether the statement is correct or not and then decide the said issue.' and on the above discussion and also applying the ratio of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court answered in the negative and I proceed to pass the following.. ORDER: The application U/o.7 rule 11(d) r/w sec.151 of CPC is hereby dismissed on cost of Rs.1000/- to be paid to other side." 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the fifth defendant has filed the present revision petition. 5. Sri. Santosh B.M., learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, vehemently contented that suit is hopelessly barred by time as within the three years of attaining the majority, plaintiff did not choose to challenge the sale deed. 6. He would also contend that, when the suit is filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed, such suit must be dismissed per se as barred by limitation. 7. He would further contend that cause of action paragraph in the plaint is illusory in nature which is evident from the fact that plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 4 have engaged the same counsel before this Court which prima facie establishes that it is a collusive suit. 8. Counsel for respondent absent today. Hence, this Court perused the material on record in the light of the arguments put-forth on behalf of the fifth defendant/revision petitioner. 9. Having heard the arguments of Sri. Santhosh B.M., this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 10. 8. Counsel for respondent absent today. Hence, this Court perused the material on record in the light of the arguments put-forth on behalf of the fifth defendant/revision petitioner. 9. Having heard the arguments of Sri. Santhosh B.M., this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 10. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the suit is one for declaration. When suit is one for declaration, the question of the limitation period insofar as the 1/5 th share of the plaintiff is concerned, need to be adjudicated by raising an issue in the Trial Court and Trial Court has tot apply suitable article prescribed in the Limitation Act. 11. At any rate, since there is no dispute as to the relationship between plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 4. Defendants No.1 to 4 alone selling the property in favour of the fifth defendant by way of registered sale deed ignoring the rights of the plaintiff, trial is necessary to hold that sale deed is bad in law after framing necessary issues. 12. Likewise, cause of action as is held in the catena of judgments is bundle of facts which cannot be decisive only on the plaint averments in the cause of action paragraph and plaint averments must be read as a whole. 13. In the case on hand, the property earlier belonged to Maralasiddaiah is not in dispute. He having died interstate living behind plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 4 are not in dispute. 14. When such is the factual aspects of the matter, suit filed by the plaintiff seeking the declaratory relief cannot be thrown out at the threshold by entertaining the application filed by Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the purchaser who has purchased the suit property. 15. Whether at all revision petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the suit property or not; Whether he had made sufficient enquiries with regard to the encumbrances if any and the sharers of the property or not, are all matters which require to be decided during the trial by placing necessary oral and documentary evidence on record. 16. 15. Whether at all revision petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the suit property or not; Whether he had made sufficient enquiries with regard to the encumbrances if any and the sharers of the property or not, are all matters which require to be decided during the trial by placing necessary oral and documentary evidence on record. 16. Thus, dismissal of the application by the Trial Court filed under Order VII to Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is just and proper and requires no emphasis and requires no interference in this Court that too in the Revisional jurisdiction. 17. Hence, following order: ORDER: (i) Revision petition is dismissed. (ii) All the contentions which are favourable to the defendants are to be urged in the pending trial in accordance with law.