JUDGMENT :

Sreenivas Harish Kumar, J.

These two petitions are disposed of by a common order as they arise from the common order passed by the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Court Hall No. 58, Bengaluru, on the applications I.A2 and 3 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) (c) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure in O.S.25299/2017. CRP 157/2019 is filed by defendants no.1, 2 and 3 and CRP 168/2019 is filed by defendant no.5. If defendants 1 to 3 sought rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (a)(c) and (d), the fifth defendant sought rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (a). Since the trial court dismissed these applications, these revision petitions are filed.

2. I have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the trial court has come to an erroneous conclusion that trial requires to be held in view of the material facts pleaded by the plaintiffs in the suit. Even with regard to limitation, a wrong finding has been given that it is also a mixed question of law and fact. The suit is for declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of their undivided 1/3rd share in the