ORDER : V SRISHANANDA, J. 1. Heard Sri. Raghu Prasad B.S., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Beeresha H., learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 3. Defendants No.8 to 10 are the revision petitioners challenging the Order of dismissal passed on the application filed by them under Order VII Rule 11 (a & d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. Beeresha H., learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 3. Defendants No.8 to 10 are the revision petitioners challenging the Order of dismissal passed on the application filed by them under Order VII Rule 11 (a & d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 5.1 A suit came to be filed in O.S.No.178/2022 is filed with the following prayer in respect of the following property (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property' for short): PRAYER WHEREFORE, the plaintiff pray that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to pass judgement and decree in favour of the Plaintiff as follows:- a) To effect partition of the suit schedule property by metes and bounds and put the Plaintiff in possession of her legitimate 1/5th share in the Suit Schedule Properties by metes and bounds; b) Sale deed dated 4-11-1987, registered as Document No.6433/1987-88, Book-1, Volume 2696, Pages 9 to 18, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore executed by Channigaiah, defendant No.4 and 6 herein in favour of defendant No.7 is not binding on the share of the plaintiff; c) Sale Deed dated 16-2-2020 registered as Document No.10499/1999-2000 in the office of the Registrar, Kengeri, executed by defendant No.7 in favour of defendant No.8 is not binding on the share of the plaintiff; d) Sale Deed dated 30-11-2000 registered as Document No.???-1-10499/1999-2000, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kengeri, Bangalore executed by defendant No.8 in favour of defendant No.9,10 and 11 is not binding on the share of the plaintiff; e) Sale Deed dated 8-10-2004, registered as Document No.KEN-1-26535/2004-05, Book-1, Stored in CD No. KEND154, in the office of the sub- Registrar, Kengeri registered on 15-10-2004 executed by defendant No.7 in favour of defendant No.8,9 and 10 is not binding on the share of the plaintiff; f) Sale Deed dated 7-5-1993, registered as Document No.1389/1993-94, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, kengeri, executed by late Gangaiah in favour of late Kempachennaiah (father of the defendant No.12 and 13) is not binding on the share of the plaintiff; g) Sale Deed dated 11-10-2004, registered as Document No.???-1-26144/2004-05, Book-1, Stored in CD No. KEND153, in the office of the Sub- Registrar, Kengeri executed by Kempachennaiah and his children late Jagananath, detendant no.12 and 13 and defendant No.6 in favour of late Ameer Jan (husband of defendant No.14) is not binding on the share of the plaintiff; h) Sale Deed dated 3-4-2017, registered as Document No.KEN-1-00047/2017-18, Book-1, Stored in CD No. KEND670, in the office of the Sub-Registra, Kengeri executed by defendant no.13 to 21 in favour of defendant No.22 is not binding on the share of the plaintiff i) To grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the above case, including cost of the suit, in the interest of justice and equity. SCHEDULE 1. All that piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy. No.4/1A, measuring 1 Acre 26 guntas situated at Kethohalli Narasapura village, Thavarekere Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and bounded on Direction Description East Land bearing Sy. No. 4/20 West Land belongs to Krishnappa and Channarayappa North Land belongs to Channarayappa South Land belongs to Krishnappa and Road 2. All that piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy. No.4/1c, measuring 0-10 guntas situated at Kethohalli Narasapura village, Thavarekere Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and bounded on Direction Description East by Land belongs to Kempachennaiah West by Land belongs to Gangaiah North by Land belongs to Lakshmanappa South by Land bearing Sy. No.5, belongs to Rajesh.P.C 3. All that piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy. No.6/3, measuring 0-01 gunta situated at Kethohalli Narasapura village, Thavarekere Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and bounded on Direction Ownership East Land belongs to Kempachennaiah West Land belongs to Gangaiah North Land belongs to Lakshmanappa South Land bearing Sy. No.5, belongs to Rajesh.P.C 5.2 In the plaint, it is contended that plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 6 had a common prepositus by name Sri. Channigaiah alias Channiga son of Late Hanumanthaiah. Channigaiah and his wife Smt. Cheluvamma expired leaving behind Hanumakka - first defendant, Gangaiah, Thulasamma - fifth defendant, Hanumanthaiah - sixth defendant and Rathnamma - plaintiff. Among them, Gangaiah expired leaving behind his wife and children, who are defendants No.2 to 4. 5.3 Thus, it is contented that plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 6 belong to joint family governed by Hindu Mithakshara School of Law. 5.4 It is further contented that land in Sy.No.4/1 and 6/3 (suit properties) are the ancestral properties and all the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 6 have succeeded to the same after the death of common prepositus. 5.5 Plaintiff also contented that Channigaiah and his wife Smt. Cheluvamma passed away and Gangaiah and Hanumanthaiah got mutated their revenue entries in respect of land in Sy.No.4/1 clandestinely. 5.6 Plaintiff further contended that till date there is no partition in the ancestral properties and sale made by the Gangaiah is illegal. 5.7 Sri. Gangaiah after getting the revenue entries mutated in the respect of land in Sy.No.4/1 converted into house sites and sold to several people including the vendors of the present revision petitioners. 5.6 Plaintiff further contended that till date there is no partition in the ancestral properties and sale made by the Gangaiah is illegal. 5.7 Sri. Gangaiah after getting the revenue entries mutated in the respect of land in Sy.No.4/1 converted into house sites and sold to several people including the vendors of the present revision petitioners. 5.8 Plaintiff being the member of the joint family, laid claim in the respect of the suit properties containing the alienation made by Sri. Gangaiah alone in respect of the suit property, would not bind them and therefore sought for partition. 5.9 Pursuant to the suit summons, revision petition has appeared and filed application under Order VII Rule 11 (a & d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5.10 Plaintiff opposed the same. Learned Trial Judge by impugned order, after considering the rival contentions of the parties, dismissed the said application. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants No.8 to 10 are before this Court in this revision petition on the following grounds: The impugned order passed is contrary to law and is liable to be set aside. The trial court failed to consider the mandate and object of order 7 rule 11 CPC in its proper perspective and has passed the impugned order without proper and legal reasoning and said order is liable to be set aside. The Hon'ble trail court failed to notice that the plaintiff had challenged the alienation of her father dt: 4-11- 1987 which had happened 35 years ago and schedule property is not even in existence to execute partition Trial court failed to consider proviso to section 6 of the Hindu succession act which specifically bars suit challenging alienation and in view of the clear assertion that her father had alienated the suit schedule property on 4-11-1987, proviso to section 6 was clearly applicable and suit was liable to be rejected which the trial court erred in not considering. The trial court also failed to consider that even the suit is barred by the law of limitation as there is an embargo that even if an minors share is sold, same to be challenged on the minor attaining majority and the plaintiff had attained majority in 1995 as per her own assertion in plaint cause title and considering the said age, the suit is also barred by limitation. The trial court failed to consider that there is no cause of action for the suit as the one has occurred in 4-11-1987 and the one that is reflected is imaginary as for the relief sought, same has not occurred for any acts done by defendants 1 to 6 and on the said score the plaint was liable to be rejected. The trial court also failed to consider that the court fee paid was insufficient as the entire suit schedule property is sold in the year 4-11-1987 and plaintiff having lost possession then, plaintiff being not in possession since more than 35 years, the reliefs sought was not applicable and plaintiff not being in possession ought to have paid court fee on the market value prevailing on the date of the suit as the plaintiff is not in possession and trial court failed to consider the same to reject the plaint. Petitioners crave leave of the court to urge such other grounds not averred herein and come to the notice of the petitioners during the course of hearing of the above petition.. Thought it was brought to the notice of the trial court that an application under order 7 rule 11 can be filed at any stage of the proceedings and that such an application even though if not filed by any party, the provision being an arm in the court of law ought to consider the same and pass necessary orders to curb frivolous litigation has erred in passing the impugned order. It is further submitted that order 7 rule 11 CPC is provided so that the court can itself look the prayer sought and the documents provided to ascertain maintainability of the suit and apex court has stated that it is a tool in the hands of the court to effectuate the object behind order 7 rule 11 and defendant need not move such an application. Prima facie on reading of the plaint itself manifests that suit was not maintainable Trial court also erred in not considering the judgments cited as same was squarely applicable to the grounds raised for rejection of plaint and ought to have exercised its jurisdiction and erred in passing the impugned order which is perverse, illegal and contrary to law and liable to be set aside. Viewed from any angle, there is no merit in the claim of the plaintiffs, they have no semblance of right in the suit schedule properties and in view of there being no right, no cause of action has accrued on the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have also not properly valued the suit and nor paid sufficient court fee on the plaint and reliefs prayed for and trial court having erred in not considering the grounds and the law urged before it has erred in rejecting IA-2, hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside and 1A-2 is liable to be allowed. 6. Sri. B.S. Raghu Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that the plaint suffers for want of material particulars. As such, there is no cause of action to file the suit. 7. He would further contend that at any rate, the site sold by Sri. Gangaiah and subsequently purchased by the revision petitioners and others, the plaint relief is per se time barred which has not been properly considered by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned order and sought for allowing the revision of the petition. 8. Per contra, Sri. Beerappa, learned counsel for the respondents, 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 crystal clear that there is no dispute as to the relationship between plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 6. 11. Admittedly, common prepositus Channigaiah and his wife Smt. Cheluvamma died and there is no details of death is forthcoming in the plaint. 12. Under such circumstances, all that the revision petitioners were required to do is to seek for better particulars or call for interrogatories. Instead, the revision petitioners have filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 (a & d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 13. Date of death of common prepositus and date of birth of the plaintiff assumes importance in such circumstances to find out whether the principles of law enunciated in Vineetha Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1 would be made applicable to the case on hand or not. 14. 13. Date of death of common prepositus and date of birth of the plaintiff assumes importance in such circumstances to find out whether the principles of law enunciated in Vineetha Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1 would be made applicable to the case on hand or not. 14. At any rate, since the cause of action paragraph discloses the cause for the suit, the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold. 15. Further, in a matter of this nature, where there is an alienation made by one of the members of the joint family, ignoring the rights of another branch, the question of limitation would not apply by mathematical precision. 16. At the most, revision petitioners may raise the defence that the suit is barred by limitation and Trial Judge is bound to raise an issue with regard to the limitation. 17. Parties are required to place necessary oral and documentary evidence on record to establish their respective cases. Therefore, issue of cause of action and issue of limitation in the case on hand would be mixed question of law and facts and therefore rejection of the plaint is just and proper which requires no interference in this revision. 18. Hence, following Order: ORDER (i) Civil Revision Petition is dismissed (ii) All the contentions including the question of limitation is left open to be urged in the trial in accordance with law.