B. Veerappa, J.

The 7th defendant filed the present civil revision petition against the order dated 28-6-2016 on I. A. No. 5 in O.S. No. 267 of 2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala rejecting her application under Order 7, Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to reject the plaint.

2. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2/plaintiffs filed suit in O.S. No. 267 of 2010 for partition and separate possession of their ½ share in the suit schedule property and also for declaration that the registered sale deed dated 8-6-2007 is not binding on the plaintiffs to the extent of their half share and that the sale deed is a sham and nominal document, contending that the suit schedule property was Talari Service Inam land which was regranted as per the order of the Tahsildar, Nelamangala Taluk in Case No. H.O.A CR 26/69-70, 260/80-81 and as per the said order each persons are entitled for ? equal share out of 38 guntas in Sy. No. 9 of Bailukonenahalli Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. As per the said order, 38 guntas were granted in the names of three persons i.e., in favour of the Munivenkatappa, S/o. Pujari Thimmappa, i.e., the father of the plaintiff; Kempaiah, S/o. Pujari Thimmappa i.e. the father of the defendants Nos.1, 2 and 6; and Munikempaiah, S/o. Pujari Thimmappa were the absolute joint owners in possession and enjoyment of the agricultural lands.

3. The Genealogical tree of the plaintiff's family and the defendant's family are produced at Annexures-C and D. Munivenkatappa i.e., the father of plaintiff died intestate leaving behind his only legal representative i.e. the plaintiff as his legal representative and by virtue of intestate succession, ?rd portion of agricultural property bearing Sy. No. 9 devolved upon to the plaintiff and she has succeeded over the same by way of inheritance and has become the absolute owner and is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the ?rd portion of suit schedule property. The plaintiff approached defendants Nos.1, 2 and 6 to effect partition and bifurcate the property into equal 3 portions as per the order of Tahsildar and to get transfer the katha into the individual names with respect to the respective share. The defendants though assured to effect partition, but started postponing the same on one pretext or the other. The 3rd son of Poojari Thimmappa viz. Munikempaiah has got transferred the katha to an extent of ?rd portion of the total extent of 38 guntas granted and presently the katha in respect of 0.12.12.00 guntas of land is maintained in the name of Munikempaiah, S/o. Poojari Thimmappa which is not in dispute. However, to the shock and surprise of the plaintiff, the 2nd defendant has managed to change/transfer the katha in respect of remaining ?rd share in 38 guntas of land i.e. 0.25.04.00 guntas of land in his name without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff. The said property to an extent of 0.25.04.00 guntas of land is represented as the suit schedule property. Further the defendant No.2 along with the defendants Nos. 3 to 5 have created a document in the name and style of sale deed dated 8-6-2007 in favour of the 7th defendant with respect to suit schedule property depriving legitimate right, title and interest of the plaintiff in the suit property. Therefore, sought for partition as prayed for.

4. The 7th defendant filed written statement denying the entire plaint averments and contended that plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the entire suit schedule property. The plaintiff claims the share on the strength of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. When the matter was posted for evidence at that stage, the 7th defendant filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to reject the plaint as it is barred under the Hindu Succession Act and further contended that the plaintiff filed the suit claiming that she is the daughter of Late Munivenkatappa and as such she is a coparcener along