ORDER : V Srishananda, J. Heard Sri Satisha D.J., learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A. Madhusudhan Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 2. The Present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the legal representatives of defendant No.3 and defendant No.4 in O.S No.247/2019, challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The facts in the nutshell, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition, are as under: 3(i) First respondent – plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No. 247/2019 for the following reliefs, in respect of following immovable properties (hereinafter referred to as “suit properties”):- "WHEREFORE, the plaintiff above named prays most respectfully that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to pass the judgment and decree against the defendants as follows:- a) For Judgment and decree in favour of plaintiff, partitioning the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds by allotting the plaintiff legitimate 1/3 rd share out of 1/4 th share of 2 nd defendant over the suit schedule properties. b) To send the preliminary decree to the Tahasildar, Magadi Taluk, Magadi and to appoint as court commissioner so as to demarcate the suit schedule properties and put them in separate possession as required under section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure. [sic] c) For cost of the suit and such other relief's as this Hon'ble court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTIES 1. All that piece and parcel of the agricultural property bearing Sy.No.17/6 measuring to an extent 2.16.00.00 (Two Acres and Sixteen) Guntas, situated at Haluru Village, Soluru Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District, bonded towards:- Direction Property East Property of Narasimhaiah West Property of Narasimhaiah North Property of Hanumanthaiah South Property of Doddegowda 2. All that piece and parcel of the agricultural property bearing old Sy.No.18 New Sy.No.18/1 measuring to an extent 5.39.00.00 (Five Acres and Thirty Nine) Guntas, situated at Haluru Village, Soluru Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District, bonded towards:- Direction Boundary East Kere Angala West Nelamangala Boundary North Property of Marigangaiah South Property of Hanumanthaiah 3. All that piece and parcel of the agricultural property bearing old Sy.No.18 New Sy.No.18/1 measuring to an extent 5.39.00.00 (Five Acres and Thirty Nine) Guntas, situated at Haluru Village, Soluru Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District, bonded towards:- Direction Boundary East Kere Angala West Nelamangala Boundary North Property of Marigangaiah South Property of Hanumanthaiah 3. All that piece and parcel of the agricultural property bearing Sy.No.20/2 measuring to an extent 4.16.00.00 (Four Acres and Sixteen) Guntas, situated at Haluru Village, Soluru Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District, bonded towards:- Direction Property East Property of Narasimhaiah West Property of Marigangaiah North Property of Doddegowda South House of Marigangaiah 4. All that piece and parcel of the agricultural property bearing Sy.No.31/1 measuring to an extent 0.14.00.00 (Fourteen) Guntas situated at Haluru Village, Soluru Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District, bonded towards:- Direction Description East Property of Marigangaiah West Tank Bund North Tank bund South Property of Ramakrishnaiah 5. All that piece and parcel of and the agricultural property bearing Sy.No.22/1 measuring to an extent 0.15.00.00 (Fifteen) Guntas, situated at Haluru Village, Soluru Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District, bonded towards:- Direction Property East Property of Ramaiah West Property of Doddegowda North Property of Doddegowda South Kere Angala 3(ii) To substantiate her right to seek partition, necessary averments made in the plaint are in paragraph Nos.5 to 7, which are culled out hereunder for ready reference. "5) The plaintiff submits that the said originator of the Hindu undivided joint family viz., Hanumanthaiah s/o Sanjeevaiah died intestate on 26/05/2011 and after his demise the suit schedule properties are devolved upon by the plaintiff and the defendants by way of inheritance. The plaintiff and the defendants being the legal heirs of said deceased Hanumanthaiah have inherited the suit schedule properties by way of inheritance and hence the same are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants herein. The plaintiff and the defendant No.5 are the children of defendant No.2. The plaintiff and the defendants being the Co-parceners of the above said Hindu undivided joint family and being Co- Sharers in respect of the suit schedule properties are in joint possession and enjoyment and jointly cultivating the suit schedule properties having their legitimate undivided shares and interests over the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff and the defendants being the Co-parceners of the above said Hindu undivided joint family and being Co- Sharers in respect of the suit schedule properties are in joint possession and enjoyment and jointly cultivating the suit schedule properties having their legitimate undivided shares and interests over the suit schedule properties. That during the life time of Hanumanthaiah or after his demise and till today there is no partition and division by metes and bounds between the plaintiff and the defendants with respect to the suit schedule properties. That in view of the facts and circumstances narrated supra the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and Hindu undivided joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants and they are having their legitimate undivided shares and interests over the suit schedule properties. The 2nd defendant being the member of the joint family and being the son of deceased said Hanumanthaiah is entitled 1/4th (One Fourth) share over the suit schedule properties, the plaintiff and defendant No.5 being the children of defendant No.2 is also entitled their legitimate shares over the suit schedule properties. Hence the plaintiff herein being the daughter of 2nd defendant is entitled 1/3 rd share out of 1/4 th share over the suit schedule properties. 6) The plaintiff submits that this being the above said facts and circumstances the plaintiff being the member of the said Hindu undivided joint family had approached the defendants and requested them to effect partition over the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and to allot her legitimate share over the suit schedule properties on 09/05/2019 with an intention to maintain good relationship as there was a cordial relationship among the plaintiff and the defendants and to avoid future litigations and complications. That though the plaintiff had approached the defendants on several occasions and the defendants have also assured and promised to the plaintiff to allot her legitimate share over the suit schedule properties, but they started to avoid the plaintiff and have also started to give vague and evasive answers in that regard as the reasons best known to them and finally on 09/07/2019 the defendants have totally denied the right, title, interest, share and possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule properties. That now the defendants have colluding with each other are trying to create third parties interest over the suit schedule properties without allotting the plaintiff legitimate share by depriving the plaintiff legitimate right, title, share, interest and possession over the suit schedule properties. The said defendants herein have no manner of exclusive/independent right, title, interest, share or possession over the suit schedule properties so as to create third parties interest over the suit schedule properties. Hence the plaintiff has no other efficacious remedy to redress his grievance is approaching this Hon'ble court along with this suit. 7) The cause of action for filing the above suit arose on 09/05/2019 when the plaintiff put forth demand for partition and on 09/07/2019 when the defendants have totally denied the right, title, interest, share and possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule properties and on and subsequently which is within the limitation and jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court." 3(iii) Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants No.3 and defendant No.4 entered appearance. During the pendancy of the suit, the third defendant died and legal representatives of the deceased third defendant were brought on record. 3(iv) Defendants No.3 and 4 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure that the plaint is to be rejected for want of cause of action. 3(v) In the affidavit, it is contented that the common prepositus is Hanumanthaiah, who died in the year 2011, and during the lifetime of Hanumanthaiah, there was a registered partition between Hanumanthaiah and his brothers and therefore, plaintiff is not entitled for sharing the suit property. 3(vi) Plaintiff opposed the said application and by impugned order, learned trial Judge has dismissed the said application, inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.12 to 15, as under:- "12. Further Ex.P3 is the mutation for the year 1987-88 on perusal of the same it reveals that based on the registered partition deed names of K.S.Ramaiah and Hanumanthaiah were mutated to the land No.22/1, 22/1, 17/6C in favor of K.S.Ramaiah and Sy.No.18, 20/2, 16/6A, 17/6A, 31/1, 22/1 & 17/6 were mutated in the name of Hanumanthaiah. At this stage, the defendants have not produced any materials to show that these properties are the self acquired properties of Hanumanthaiah and K.S.Ramaiah. They have divided the properties among themselves. 13. At this stage, the defendants have not produced any materials to show that these properties are the self acquired properties of Hanumanthaiah and K.S.Ramaiah. They have divided the properties among themselves. 13. The contents of Ex.P2 clearly reveals that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties at the hands of Hanumanthaiah Therefore, the characteristics of the properties are not changed given to the plaintiff those are presumed to be ancestral properties. The definition of ancestral properties is mentioned by the defendants in their affidavit stating that if the property derived to the fourth generation from father's father or father's father's father, is called as ancestral property. Hanumanthaiah is the grand-father of the plaintiff, Hanumanthaiah took the properties through his ancestors therefore, at the hands of plaintiff or the defendant No.2 those properties are ancestral properties. 14. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinutha Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma case, the daughters are treated as coparceners on par with the sons derespective of the date of birth. The right of a coparcener to seek partition is unparalleled and in the customary Hindu law a son has got birth rate to seek partition and at any point of time he can seek partition. Now the daughters placed on par with the son she can also seek partition even during the life time of the father. 15. Therefore, the suit is very well maintainable, the cause of action mentioned in Para No.6 of the plaint is clear and the cause of action arose on 09.05.2019 and 09.07.2019. It is trait law that the cause of action is bundle of facts it depends upon the events took place between the parties to the suit. Further the suit is for partition and separate possession, in a suit for partition and separate possession the cause of action is recurring one. Under these circumstances, looking from any angle, I could not find that no cause of action for filing the suit and the defendants have not produced any materials to show that the suit schedule properties are self acquired properties of Hanumanthaiah. Under these circumstances, looking from any angle, I could not find that no cause of action for filing the suit and the defendants have not produced any materials to show that the suit schedule properties are self acquired properties of Hanumanthaiah. The record of rights, index of land or any documents pertaining to the suit properties from the year 1950 on wards are not produced." 3(vii) Being aggrieved by the same, the legal representatives of the third defendant and fourth defendant have filed the present revision petition on the following grounds:- The impugned order at Annexure-A by the trial court is opposed to probabilities of the case, material on record, and, as such, unsustainable in law. The trial court failed to appreciate the averments of the plaint and not the contents of affidavit accompanying the application proper prospective and it seen has resulted in miss-carriage of justice. The case of the plaintiff is that, the suit property originally grandfather of the plaintiff by name Hanumanthaiah by virtue of the registered partition dated 30/8/1967. Copy of the Mutation is at Annexure-F and on the basis of partition revenue entries were changed in the RTC. Subsequently during the year 2011 he was passed away. Hence, the suit property inherited by a Hindu from his father, father's father, father undivided joint family property up to the four generation, Hence it is clear that, the plaintiff is the granddaughter of late Hanumanthaiah and comes under 2nd generation. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff cannot claiming the suit properties are ancestral properties. Hence, the observation made in the impugned order is illegal. The plaintiff cannot claim birth right over the suit properties during the life time of her father defendant No.2 in the said suit, when the father of plaintiff is alive and the suit is filed by the plaintiff against her father during her life time. Thus the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The cause of action mentioned in para no.6 of the plaint arose on 9/5/2019 and 9/7/2019 for demanding the partition to the defendants of suit schedule properties as on taken place, is clear that, there is no cause of action arise for filling the suit itself. Hence, the present suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The cause of action mentioned in para no.6 of the plaint arose on 9/5/2019 and 9/7/2019 for demanding the partition to the defendants of suit schedule properties as on taken place, is clear that, there is no cause of action arise for filling the suit itself. Hence, the present suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The trial court without properly appreciating the contentions of the petitioner had dismiss the application is required to be set aside and dismiss the suit for want of cause of action. The reasons assigned in the impugned order is illegal and is required to be set aside. 4. Sri Satisha D.J., learned counsel for the petitioners, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contented that the learned trial Judge failed to appreciate the scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC and wrongly rejected the application, resulting in miscarriage of justice. 4(i) He would further contend that the plaintiff, being the granddaughter, does not possess any right over the suit property inasmuch as a daughter of a son of a coparcener cannot maintain the suit during the lifetime of the father and sought for allowing the revision petition and rejection of the plaint. 5. Per contra, Sri A.Madhusudhan Rao, learned counsel representing the respondent-plaintiff emphasized on the plaint prayer and contented that all that the plaintiff is seeking is her share in the share that has been allotted to her father in the property possessed by Hanumanthaiah and therefore, rejection of the plaint as is claimed by the revision petitioner is impermissible. 6. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, there is no dispute as to the nature of the property or relationship. 7. Having said so, the partition between Hanumanthaiah - common prepositus of the plaintiff and her brothers and brothers of Hanumanthaiah is not in dispute. All that the plaintiff is seeking in the suit is to allot the share in the share that would fall to the share of her father. 8. Therefore, the contentions urged on behalf of the defendant Nos.3(a) and (b) and defendant No.4 that during the lifetime of the father of the plaintiff, there cannot be a suit for partition and therefore, the plaint ought to have been rejected cannot be countenanced in law. 9. 8. Therefore, the contentions urged on behalf of the defendant Nos.3(a) and (b) and defendant No.4 that during the lifetime of the father of the plaintiff, there cannot be a suit for partition and therefore, the plaint ought to have been rejected cannot be countenanced in law. 9. It is settled principle of law and requires no emphasis that the cause of action in a given suit is a bundle of facts. 10. As could be seen from the material averments made in paragraph Nos.5 to 7 of the plaint, referred to supra, sufficient material facts in the pleadings are available on record which alone are to be considered to maintain the suit, as is held in a catena of judicial pronouncements. 11. Therefore, the contention urged on behalf of the defendant Nos.3(a) and (b) and defendant No.4 that the suit is not maintainable for want of cause of action is rightly rejected by learned trial Judge in the impugned order. 12. Having regard to the scope of the revisional jurisdiction and the material available on record, this Court does not find any good grounds to interfere with the order of the trial Court. 13. Hence following:- ORDER (i) The Civil Revision petition is dismissed (ii) All contentions are kept open to be urged, in accordance with law. In view of dismissal of the main matter, pending application I.A.1/2024 does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of.