T. Mathivanan, J.

Challenging the Judgment and Decree, dated 19.09.2013 and made in the appeal in A.S.No.10 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram, reversing the Judgment and Decree, dated 13.09.2011 and made in the Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.493 of 2011 in O.S.No.59 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, this memorandum of Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The defendants 1 to 9 in the suit in O.S.No.59 of 2011 are the appellants herein whereas the plaintiffs are the respondents 1 and 2 and the defendants 10 to 13 in the suit are the respondents 3 to 6 herein.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 had filed the suit in O.S.No.59 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, as against the appellants as well as against the respondents 3 to 6 seeking the relief of a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of their half share in the suit properties as well as their share in the future income.

4. During the pendency of the suit, the appellants 1 to 9, who are the defendants had filed an application in I.A.No.493 of 2011 under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. to reject the plaint for the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of that application.

5. Despite strenuous objection was made by the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs 1 and 2, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, had proceeded to allow that application on 13.09.2011, which was resulted in the rejection of the plaint in the suit in O.S.No.59 of 2011.

6. Challenging the correctness of the order, dated 13.09.2011, the respondents/plaintiffs 1 and 2 had filed an appeal in A.S.No.10 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram.

7. After hearing both sides, the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram, had proceeded to allow the appeal and the order of rejection of the plaint passed by the trial court was set aside and the application in I.A.No.493 of 2011 was remitted back to the trial court for fresh disposal after giving due opportunities to both the parties to adduce evidences.

8. Challenging the order of remand passed by the first appellate Court, the defendants 1 to 9, who are the applicants in I.A.No.493 of 2011, stand before this Court with this second appeal.

9. Heard Ms.Chitra Sampath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. R.Sunil Kumar, who is on record for the appellants/defendants 1 to 9 and Ms.R.Meenal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

10. Ms.Chitra Sampath, learned Senior Counsel has mainly articulated her arguments on the sole ground of limitation.

11. She has also identified the following substantial question of law to that effect for the better disposal of this second appeal.

"a. When the plaintiffs admit in their plaint that the defendants' father had denied their claim for a share in the suit properties in and by his reply, dated 20.10.1992 (Ex.P.73), whether the court below was correct in ignoring the law of limitation for making such a claim after a lapse of 19 years ?"

12. In addition to this substantial question of law, the learned Senior Counsel has also identified the other two substantial questions of law which are shown hereunder:-

"(i) When the plaintiffs admittedly had not disclosed the earlier litigation in O.S.No.852 of 1991 between the parties in relation to the very same issue of partition in 1938, whether the Court below was right in ignoring the conduct of suppression of material facts by the plaintiff to maintain the present suit ?

(ii) When the relief sought for in the plaint had been under-valued by the plaintiffs whether the court below was right in ignoring this important issue with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court."

13. Before answering to the above substantial questions of law, this Court finds it better to extract the provisions of Rule 11 Order 7 C.P.C.

"R.11 Rejection of Plaint - The plaint shall be rejec