ORDER : V Srishananda, J. 1. Heard Sri. Shivakumar N., learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court did not deem it fit to issue notice to the respondent. 2. Defendants No.1 and2 in OS No.344/2023 is the revision petitioners challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of he Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petitioner as under: 3.1 First respondent filed suit in OS No.344/2023 with the following prayer in the respect of the following immovable properties (hereinafter referred to as the suit properties). PRAYER: WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a judgement and decree- (a) To declare that the plaintiff is entitled for partition and to allot her 1/7 th share each in the suit schedule properties; (b) For mense profits. (c) Pass appropriate order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to pass under the facts and circumstances of the case including award of cost of this suit, in the interest of justice and equity. SCHEDULE PROPERTY Item No.1: All that piece and parcel of agricultural property bearing Sy. No.75/1, measuring to an extent of 4 acre 6 guntas, situated at, Aruvanahalli village, Kundana hobli, Devanahalli taluk, Bengaluru rural district, bounded on the: Direction Description East Land in sy.no.76 West Land in sy.no.82 North Land in sy.no.77 South Land in sy.no.78/2 ITEM No.2: All that piece and parcel of agricultural property bearing Sy. No.75/2 measuring to an extent of 8 guntas, situated at, Aruvanahalli village, Kundana hobli, Devanahalli taluk, Bengaluru rural district, bounded on the: Direction Description East Land in sy.no.76 West Land in sy.no.82 North Land in sy.no.75/1 South Land in sy no.74 Item No.3: All that piece and parcel of agricultural property bearing Sy.No. 76/1 measuring to an extent of 4 acre 26 guntas, situated at, Aruvanahalli village, Kundana hobli, Devanahalli taluk, Bengaluru rural district, bounded on the: Direction Description East Land in sy.no.88. West Land in sy.no.75. North Land in sy.no.77. South Land in sy.no.73. Item No.4: All that piece and parcel of agricultural property bearing Sy. No.76/2 measuring to an extent of 28 guntas, situated at, Aruvanahalli village, Kundana hobli, Devanahalli taluk, Bengaluru rural district, bounded on the: Direction Land Description East Land in sy.no.76/1. West Land in sy.no.75. North Land in sy.no.77. South Land in sy.no.73. South Land in sy.no.73. Item No.4: All that piece and parcel of agricultural property bearing Sy. No.76/2 measuring to an extent of 28 guntas, situated at, Aruvanahalli village, Kundana hobli, Devanahalli taluk, Bengaluru rural district, bounded on the: Direction Land Description East Land in sy.no.76/1. West Land in sy.no.75. North Land in sy.no.77. South Land in sy.no.73. 3.2 Plaintiff contended that she being the daughter of daughter of Sri Anjanappa who is the common prepositus is having the right, title and interest in the suit property in view of the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act as admittedly Anjanappa died after 2003. 3.3 Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants No.1 and 2 entered appearance filed written statement and also contended that there was a previous partition which was registered and suit cannot be maintained. 3.4 Defendants also contended that all the properties are not included in the plaint and therefore plaint is to be rejected. 3.5 It is also the contention of the defendants that Anjanappa has executed a Will in favour of the plaintiff and therefore, suit for partition is not maintainable. 3.6 Plaintiff opposed the said application by filing written objection. 3.7 Learned Trial Judge considering the rival contentions of the parties dismissed the application inter alia holding in paragraphs No.7 to 10 as under: 7. POINT No.1: The plaintiff has filed suit for partition seeking 1/7th share in the suit properties. There are only 4 properties which are proposed by defendant No.8 for acquisition. It is stated in the plaint that plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 7 are the undivided family members and in joint possession of suit properties. After the death of Anjanappa who is the father of plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 5, defendants No.1 and 2 continued to manage the joint family affairs. The plaintiff demanded Partition on 15.01.2023. It was refused. The suit properties are acquired by defendant no.8 for the purpose of Industrial Development. The defendant No.8 has awarded compensation to the defendants No.1 and 2 in respect of suit properties. Plaintiff has requested the authority not to disburse the award to the defendants No.1 and 2. 8. Plaint has to be considered as a whole. Impleading applicant has also filed family tree and Record of Rights, they show that R.T.C. was rectified on 25.02.2019 in the name of defendant No.2. They show that partition was on 30.03.2004. Plaintiff has requested the authority not to disburse the award to the defendants No.1 and 2. 8. Plaint has to be considered as a whole. Impleading applicant has also filed family tree and Record of Rights, they show that R.T.C. was rectified on 25.02.2019 in the name of defendant No.2. They show that partition was on 30.03.2004. They also show that partition on 29.11.2007 in the name of defendant No.2. But, they do not show that there was registered partition or not in the family of plaintiff and defendants. Apart from this plaintiff has submitted that compensation in respect of suit schedule property is not received by the plaintiff. Therefore, to know the actual facts and entire circumstances in the case, it requires full-fledged trial. Other aspects will be considered at the time of trial. Defendants No.1 and 2 have contended that all the properties under partition deed are not included in the suit. Only on the basis of this fact, plaint cannot be rejected. Because, there is chance to the plaintiff to include the said properties in this case. Therefore, I am of the opinion that defendants No.1 and 2 have not made out the grounds to reject the plaint. Hence, objection of the plaintiff is sustainable. 9. The Advocate for defendants No.1 and 2 has produced rulings reported in (1) 1977 0 Supreme (SC) 313 in between Arivandandam V/s. T.V. Satyapal and Another, (2) ILR 1994 KAR 230 in between Karnataka Bank V/s. T. Gopalakrishna Rao, (3) 2016 (2) KCCR 1311 in between Smt. Lakshmi and Others V/s. Smt. Neelamma and Others. I have perused them with due respect. 10. It is held that if there is no cause of action, plaint can be rejected. It is also held that if there is meritless suit, it can be thrown out at the earliest. It is also held that if there is an alienation prior to 20.12.2004, plaint can be rejected as there is no cause of action. But in this case, on perusal of entire plaint averments and other materials produced by the plaintiff, defendants and impleading applicants, I am of the opinion that there is cause of action to file this suit. The right of the plaintiff is also involved in respect of acquisition of the suit properties. But in this case, on perusal of entire plaint averments and other materials produced by the plaintiff, defendants and impleading applicants, I am of the opinion that there is cause of action to file this suit. The right of the plaintiff is also involved in respect of acquisition of the suit properties. Hence, at this time, I am of the opinion that the objection, facts and law stated therein is helpful to the plaintiff. Hence, I am of the opinion that application is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I answer Point No. 1 in the "NEGATIVE". 4. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants No.1 and 2 have filed the present revision petition on the following grounds: It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Judge of the Trial Court in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners is in violation of settled position of Law and is wholly illegal, arbitrary, capricious and not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the eye of settled law of the land and deserve to be quashed. It is submitted that in the plaint presented by the plaintiff, she has categorically admitted that "one late Hanumappa @ Mathada Hanumappa was the kartha of the joint family and enjoying the properties through an inheritance. After the death of Hanumappa his son H. Anjanappa the father of plaintiff and Defendant No.1 to 5 look after the suit schedule properties and after his death now defendant No.1 & 2 have look after the joint family properties and all the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 7 are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties". If this averment is true, then the plaintiff should know that which are the properties enjoyed by the joint family and seeking for partial partition OR non including of all the properties of the joint family in the suit is also not permissible and it requires dismissal of plaint. And also if it is true then H. Anjanappa the father of plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 5 had no right to execute the will dated 09.02.2001 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the Sy.No.106 measuring 2 acres 17 guntas. And furthermore there was a registered partition between the father of the plaintiff and her brothers in the year 18.10.2003. And furthermore there was a registered partition between the father of the plaintiff and her brothers in the year 18.10.2003. Plaintiff in para 6 of her plaint while make clever drafting has clearly / impliedly admitted that "There is no partition amongst the plaintiff and defendant no.1 to 7 in respect of the suit schedule properties till this day". This admission made by the plaintiff makes it crystal clear that there was a partition in the family prior to 2004, the plaintiff is trying to conceal the same by making cleaver drafting to maintain the suit and to protract the money from the petitioners. Further, the defendant No. 1 & 2 contended that the proviso to section 6 (1) of The Hindu Succession Act will not invalidate any disposition or alienation including partition or testamentary disposition which has taken place before 20th December 2004. The said preposition has also been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineetha Sharma V/s Rakesh Sharma reported in 2020 (9) SCC page 1. Admittedly in the instant case on 08/08/1997, there is already a registered partition. As such there is no cause of action to file the present suit. Such being the case, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the plaint. On this ground alone the Trial Judge ought to have rejected the plaint presented by the plaintiff. Non considering this aspect is not sustainable in the eye of Law. Therefore, at the outset the suit of the plaintiff is barred by Law of Limitation. It is submitted that the finding recorded by the learned Judge of the Trial Court holding that the issue raised by the Applicants is a mixed question of Law and facts is not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Even otherwise the impugned order passed by learned Judge of the Trial Court is not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the eye of the settled law of the land. Petitioner craves for kind leave of this Hon'ble Court to urge such other grounds at the time of hearing. 5. Even otherwise the impugned order passed by learned Judge of the Trial Court is not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the eye of the settled law of the land. Petitioner craves for kind leave of this Hon'ble Court to urge such other grounds at the time of hearing. 5. Sri N. Shivakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that the approach of the Trial Court in rejecting the application seeking rejection of the plaint is illegal inasmuch as the earlier registered partition having been ignored by the Trial Court and not considered the fact that a second suit for the partition is not maintainable. 6. He would further contend that there was a Will executed by Anjanappa in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiff has been given her legitimate share in the suit property and therefore suit for partition that too for the few of the properties alone by the plaintiff as is contained in the plaint schedule is per se not maintainable which has been not considered by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned order and sought for admitting the revision petition for further consideration. 7. In the light of the argument put-forth on behalf of the petitioner, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 8. On such perusal of the material on record, common prepositus having died after the year 2003, following the principles of law enunciated in the case of Vineetha Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1 , suit for partition is maintainable irrespective of the fact that there was a registered partition deed between the male members ignoring the daughters. 9. Further, if all the properties are not included in the suit, it is always open for the defendants to include those properties by furnishing the necessary details as to such properties in the written statement by making a specific schedule. 10. It is needless to emphasize that not only the plaint schedule properties would be considered by the Trial Court in a suit for partition, but any other properties which are left out which are also of joint family properties can be included in the form of schedule of written statement and those properties will also be subject matter of the suit. 11. 11. Therefore, none of the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner are good enough to admit the revision petition for further consideration. 12. Hence, following order: ORDER (i) Revision Petition stands dismissed (ii) All the contentions available to the defendants No.1 and 2 are kept open to be urged in the Trial Court in the suit in accordance with law.