ORDER : 1. Heard Sri.Visweswaraiah K.C., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Venkata Reddy G.K., learned counsel for respondent No.1. 2. Defendant No.7 is the revision petitioner challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short) in O.S.No.3421/2023. 3. Facts in the nutshell for disposal of the present petition are as under: 3.1. A suit for partition and separate possession came to be filed by respondent No.1 – Smt.Roopa D.V., against seven respondents with respect to following immovable property (hereinafter referred to as suit property): “All that piece and parcel of the property bearing site No.2264 sitauted at 2 nd stage of Banashankari Extension, Bangalore measuring 2600 Sq. Feet (40 x 65) along with building and bounded as follows: East by: Site No.2263 West by: Site No.2265 North by: Road South by: site No.2229” 3.2. She contended that suit property earlier belonged to Sri.S.S.Vaidya who died intestate leaving behind his wife and seven children. 3.3. According to the plaintiff, she being one of the daughters of Sri.S.S.Vaidya, is entitled for 1/8 th share in the suit property. 3.4. Suit was opposed by the defendant No.7 by filing written statement by contending that Sri.S.S.Vaidya in his lifetime, has executed a Will in favour of his wife Smt.Leelavathi, whereby entire property stood bequeathed in favour of Smt.Leelavathi, who in turn executed a registered gift deed in favour of respondent No.3 – Miss.Radha, defendant No.7 – Sri.Sudhir who is the grandson of Sri.S.S.Vaidya and sought for rejection of the plaint. 4. Learned Trial Judge after entertaining the objections of the plaintiff, dismissed the application. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.7 is before this Court on following grounds: That the learned Trial Court Judge while deciding the said I.A. No.2 for rejection of plaint, has erroneously relied on the clever statement made by the Plaintiff in the Plaint with respect to limitation and cause of action, instead of relying on the plaint document No.5- Registered Gift Deed dated 19.05.2011, wherein it is clearly stated that "And Whereas the Donor has today delivered and the Donees- Sri. Prakash Vaidya, Sri.Sudhir and Ms. Radha.S have taken actual possession of the Schedule Property. Prakash Vaidya, Sri.Sudhir and Ms. Radha.S have taken actual possession of the Schedule Property. The Donor has handed over the relevant documents in originals of the Schedule Property for future guidance of the Donees and the Donees have agreed to accept Gift as is evidenced by their executing these presents". A copy of the said Gift Deed dated 19.05.2011 is produced herewith as DOCUMENT NO.4 for ready reference and kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. By reading the said covenant of the Gift Deed, it is clear that the suit Schedule Property lost the status of joint family property on 19.05.2011 itself and whereas the said partition suit is filed on 02.06.2023 which is beyond 12 years and therefore it is clearly hit by Article 109 of the Limitation Act. But the learned Trial Judge, without going through the said Gift Deed dated 19.05.2011 has erroneously misinterpreted Article 109 at Para No.10 of the impugned order by observing that " ..........Therefore, though the Defendant No.7 has relied upon Article 109 of the Limitation Act, the alienee has not taken the possession over the property. The possession is with the family members. Further, Article 109 of the Limitation Act is applicable only to set aside the father's alienation of ancestral property and therefore, said article is not applicable". Therefore, since the prayer for partition and separate possession is clearly barred by limitation, the learned Trial Judge ought to have rejected the plaint on this ground alone. It is pertinent to note that, to consider the prayer for partition and separate possession of the Plaintiff's 1/7th share, as prayed at prayer No.(a); in the first instance, it is necessary to consider the prayer for declaration, to declare the registered Gift Deed dated 19.05.2011, is not binding on the Plaintiff, as prayed at prayer No.(c). However, as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the limitation to obtain/seek the declaration is 3 years, when the right to sue first accrues. In the current suit, right to sue/cause of action first accrues/arose to the Plaintiff, when her mother executed the registered Gift Deed on 19.05.2011 (Document No.5 in the Plaint), to the exclusion of Plaintiff. But the Plaintiff has filed the partitions suit on 02.06.2023 which is beyond 3 years from the date of right to sue/cause of action first accrues/arose. In the current suit, right to sue/cause of action first accrues/arose to the Plaintiff, when her mother executed the registered Gift Deed on 19.05.2011 (Document No.5 in the Plaint), to the exclusion of Plaintiff. But the Plaintiff has filed the partitions suit on 02.06.2023 which is beyond 3 years from the date of right to sue/cause of action first accrues/arose. As such, the Plaintiff is not entitled to get the relief of declaration as sought at prayer No.(c) in the Plaint and hence the Plaint is liable to be rejected. But the learned Trial Judge erroneously observed that the cause of action arose on March 2023, by relying on the clever drafting of the Plaintiff. Therefore, since the prayer for declaration is also barred by limitation, the learned Trial Judge ought to have rejected the plaint on this ground also. That the Defendant-7/Petitioner relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2020)7 SCC 366 in support of his case, before the Trial Court. The learned Trial Judge, even though referred the said decision, has miserably failed to appreciate the same in the right perspective, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly observed that 'court has to find whether plaint discloses real cause of action or illusory cause of action created by clever drafting- court must be vigilant against camouflage or suppression and if suit found to be vexatious and an abuse of process of court, it should exercise its drastic power under Rule 11 to reject the plaint'. But the learned Trial Judge erroneously observed that the cause of action arose on March 2023, by relying on the clever drafting of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge ought to have rejected the plaint on this count also. That the above said facts and grounds clearly establishes that, the partition suit is clearly barred by law of limitation and as such the Plaint does not discloses the cause of action and the cause of action said to be arose on March 2023 as claimed in para 8 of the plaint is cleverly created, only for the purpose of filing the current vexatious suit. Therefore, if the proceedings of the said vexatious suit continues, the Petitioner and the Respondents 2 to 7 herein who are the senior citizens, will be put to unnecessary harassment and hardship. Therefore, if the proceedings of the said vexatious suit continues, the Petitioner and the Respondents 2 to 7 herein who are the senior citizens, will be put to unnecessary harassment and hardship. Hence it is just and necessary to reject the plaint by setting aside the impugned order. Besides that, it is more pertinent to note the dubious, deceitful and dishonest conduct of the Plaintiff/Respondent-1 since she has not approached the Hon'ble Court with clean hands. The Respondent-1 has dishonestly stated at Para-8 of the Plaint that "... the cause of action for the suit arose on March 2023 when it came to the knowledge of the Plaintiff that the Defendants No.2, 3 and 7 effected a partition deed themselves..." by deliberately suppressing the material fact of 'demolition of old building and construction of a new 3 storied building on the Suit Schedule Property in the year 2012 itself, by the Petitioner and Respondents 3 & 4. Moreover, nowhere in the Plaint, the Plaintiff/Respondent-1 has stated such an important and crucial fact of construction of the new building on the suit schedule property. The motive behind the Plaintiff/Respondent-1 keeping quite till completion of the construction of the said 3 storied new building, by the Petitioner and Respondents 3 & 4 was, to make wrongful gain at the cost of Petitioner and Respondents 3 & 4, by claiming partition of the said new building, on the frivolous cause of action. Hence on this count also the plaint is liable to be rejected by setting aside the impugned order. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant No.7 would contend that having regard to the fact that defendant No.7 got the share in the suit property by virtue of the gift deed executed by Smt.Leelavathi who had the power over the suit property by virtue of the Will executed by Sri.S.S.Vaidya, suit filed by the plaintiff in the year 2023 is barred by time. 7. He would further contend that the learned Trial Judge dismissing the application filed by defendant No.7 by assigning the reasons in paragraph No.10 of the impugned order is incorrect. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent No.1 supports the impugned order. 9. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 10. On such perusal of the material on record, it is noted that admittedly, the property belonged to Sri.S.S.Vaidya. 11. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent No.1 supports the impugned order. 9. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 10. On such perusal of the material on record, it is noted that admittedly, the property belonged to Sri.S.S.Vaidya. 11. It is contended by the revision petitioner that said Sri.S.S.Vaidya had executed a Will in favour of Smt.Leelavathi who is the wife of Sri.S.S.Vaidya and bequeathed the entire suit property in favour of Sri.S.S.Vaidya. 12. Copy of the Will is not placed on record either by defendant No.7 or by the plaintiff. On the contrary, as could be seen from the plaint averments, plaintiff has maintained that Sri.S.S.Vaidya died intestate. 13. Under such circumstances, it requires an enquiry whether the donor namely Smt.Leelavathi who gifted the property in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 7 had the power and competence to gift the property in favour of revision petitioner or not in a full-fledged trial. 14. Further, if the Will executed by Sri.S.S.Vaidya stands established and Smt.Leelavathi had the competence to execute the gift in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 7, automatically, the suit would be dismissed. 15. The written statement is yet to be filed and the alleged Will executed by Sri.S.S.Vaidya in favour of his wife - Smt.Leelavathi is yet to come to light. 16. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the rejection of the application filed by defendant No.7 is just and proper. 17. Hence, following: ORDER Revision petition is dismissed.