ORDER : V.SRISHANANDA, J. Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar V, for Sri Narayana Swamy P.M., learned counsel for the revision petitioners. None appears for the respondents. 2. Defendant Nos.6, 7 and 9 are the revision petitioners challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure passed in O.S No.37/2012 dated 22.01.2024 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: A suit in O.S No.37/2012 came to be filed by the plaintiffs against 32 defendants with the following prayer in respect of following immovable property (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’): PRAYER Wherefore, the plaintiffs pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass judgment and decree against the defendants: a) Declaring that the alleged sale deed dated 25-10- 1990 executed by Defendants 1 and 2 and the father of the Defendants 3 and 4 and their mother Ghouse Bi in favour of the 5 th Defendant is illegal and not binding on the Plaintiffs legitimate ½ share. b) The Sale deeds executed by Defendants 6 in favour of Defendants No.9,10,15,16,21,25,26,27,28,29,30,31 and sale deeds executed by Defendant No.7 In favour of Defendant No.11,12,13,14,17,18,19,20,22,23,24 are not binding on these plaintiffs. c) By granting permanent injunction restraining the Defendants 6 to 8 from alienating the Suit schedule property in favour of the third parties. d) By effecting partition allotting the Plaintiffs legitimate ½ share in suit schedule property by fixing metes and bounds and put the plaintiffs in separate possession of his shares so allotted. e) Grant costs of the suit and f) To pass such other relief/s this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.” SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy. No.86/1, measuring 3 acres 1 guntas including 3 guntas of Karab situated at Kuduregere Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk and bounded on :- East by: Nakase Road and Land of Chennamma West by: Land of Kuduregere Revanna, North by: Land in Sy. No.86.2, South by: Government Road and others property.” 4. Plaintiffs contended that first plaintiff is the daughter-in-law, plaintiff Nos.2 to 6, defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the grandchildren and defendant Nos.3 and 4 are the great grandchildren of Madar Sab @ Bapu Sab. No.86.2, South by: Government Road and others property.” 4. Plaintiffs contended that first plaintiff is the daughter-in-law, plaintiff Nos.2 to 6, defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the grandchildren and defendant Nos.3 and 4 are the great grandchildren of Madar Sab @ Bapu Sab. It is further contended that Madar Sab @ Bapu Sab was married to Smt.Fathima and in their wedlock, they had two sons namely Sheik Hussain Sab @ Sheik Sab and Sheik Buden Sab @ Baba Sab. 5. Plaintiffs further contented that plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 4 are the Sunni Muslims. During the lifetime of Madar Sab, he has acquired land bearing Sy.No.86/1 measuring three acres one gunta, including three guntas of kharab land situated at Kuduregere Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. 6. It is contended that Madar Sab @ Bapu Sab died about 40 years earlier intestate leaving behind his wife Fathima and two sons as aforesaid. 7. Plaintiffs further contended that Fathima being the mother of Sheik Hussain Sab and Sheik Buden Sab died. Thereafter, Sheik Hussain Sab and Sheik Buden Sab succeeded to the suit property as tenants in common, each having half share in the suit property. 8. It is further contented that Sheikh Hussain Sab and Sheikh Buden Sab also died leaving behind their respective wife and children to succeed to their respective share of the suit property. 9. During the lifetime of Sheikh Hussain Sab and Sheikh Buden Sab, no partition has taken place in respect of the suit property. Therefore, plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 4 are enjoying the suit property as tenants in common and they are having the right over the suit property. Therefore they sought for the plaint relief. 10. Written statement came to be filed in the suit pursuant to the suit summons by Defendant Nos.6 to 8, inter alia filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure contending that suit is barred by limitation and also barred by law. 11. Learned Trial Judge after entertaining the objections filed by the plaintiffs, dismissed the application filed by defendant Nos.6 to 8 by the impugned order. 12. Thereafter, being aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos.6, 7 and 9 are before this Court in this revision. 13. 11. Learned Trial Judge after entertaining the objections filed by the plaintiffs, dismissed the application filed by defendant Nos.6 to 8 by the impugned order. 12. Thereafter, being aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos.6, 7 and 9 are before this Court in this revision. 13. Sri Ramesh for Sri Narayana Swamy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by law and by law of limitation and sought for allowing the revision petition. 14. None appears for the contesting respondents. 15. In the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the revision petitioners, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 16. This Court directed the learned counsel for revision petitioners to establish as to how the suit is barred by any law. 17. Sri Ramesh, learned counsel for the revision petitioners is unable to point out under which law the suit is barred. 18. Further, learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the sale deed was executed on 25.10.1990 and suit is filed in the year 2012, which would not be per se barred by limitation. 19. As could be seen from the plaint prayer, the relief sought for is to declare the sale deed dated 25.10.1990 executed by defendant Nos.1, 2, father of defendant No.3 and father of defendant No.4 and their mother Smt. Ghouse Bi in favour of fifth defendant is illegal and not binding on the half share of the plaintiffs. 20. Admittedly, plaintiffs claim their right to the suit property under one of the sons of Madar Sab. The genealogical tree appended to the plaint depicts that plaintiffs claiming under one of the sons of Madar Sab prima facie would not be binding on the share of the plaintiffs. 21. Anyway these are all the disputed questions which requires to be adjudicated in the trial. When once the sale deed prima facie appears to be not binding on the plaintiffs, plaint cannot be thrown out at the threshold on the ground of limitation. 22. Therefore, dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Trial Court is just and proper which requires no interference by this Court in this revision petition. 23. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. (ii) All the contentions are kept open to be urged in the trial.