The court emphasized that all plaintiffs must be afforded an opportunity to present their case, especially concerning limitations and causes of action in partition suits.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

Heard the learned counsel Sri. G. Balakrishna Shastry.

2. The present second appeal is filed by the defendant challenging the Order passed by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.24/2023 reversing the order rejecting the plaint passed in O.S.No.347/2022.

3. Facts in the nutshell for the disposal of the present appeal are as under:

A suit for partition came to be filed by the respondents claiming to be the minor daughters of 1^st defendant. Alienation was made by the 1^st defendant in respect of the suit property prior 20.12.2004. Present appellant is the purchaser of the suit property being the defendant No.3 who had purchased the property from defendant who had earlier purchased the property from the 1^st defendant.

4. Defendant No.3 filed application under Order VII Rule 11 (a and d) to reject the plaint for want of cause of action and on the question of limitation.

5. The learned Trial Judge by assigning reasons in para No.11, rejected the plaint. For the sake of certainty, para No.11 of the Order of the Trial Court is culled out hereunder :

"The plaintiffs are the daughters of defendant No.1 they are coparceners but before 20^th December 2004 the suit property alienated by defendant No.1 therefore in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court Vineetha Sharma V/s Rakehs Sharma the plaintiffs are not coparcener not entitled relief. The judgment cited by advocate for plaintiffs based on the averments of plaint this suit is barred by law of limitation. Therefore, I hold point No.1 in the Affirmative.'

6. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed an appeal, before the District Court in RA No.24/2023.

7. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and discussing the relevant aspects of the matter in the light of the decisions relied upon by the parties, set-aside the order of the Trial Judge and remitted the matter to the Trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, by assigning the proper reasons in paragraphs No.22 to 24 of its judgment. Those paragraphs are culled out hereunder for ready reference:

22. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the following decisions;

1) AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT, 2607; Vishwambhar and others v. Laxminarayana (dead) through Lrs. and another.

2) AIR 1977 SUPREME COURT 2421; T.Arivandandam v. T.V.Satyapal and another.

3) AIR 1998 SUPREME COURT, 634; I.T.C. Limited v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and others.

4) Civil Appeal No.2960 of 2019; Ragvendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by Lrs.

I have perused the above said decisions. The above said decisions are not applicable to the case on hand. Because without giving an opportunity to the plain tiffs to prove their case on merits the above citations will not support the case of the respondent No.3.

23. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the following decisions;

1) (2018)5 Supreme Court Case, 644 ; Soumitra Kumar Sen v. Shyamal Kumar Sen and others.

2) (2008)12 Supreme Court Cases, 661; Kamala and others v. K.T.Eshwara SA and others.

3) (2012)8 Supreme Court Cases, 701 ; Bhau Ram v. Janak Singh and others.

4) I.L.R. 2008 KAR 390 (online); Mrs.Anuradha Shenoy v. N. Nanjappa .

I have perused the above said decisions. The gist of the above said decisions are to the effect that "While considering the application for rejection of plaint, averments in plaint must be considered and not what is stated in the written statement." As such the above said decisions are aptly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hands.

24. In view of the above said discussions I am of the