JUDGMENT :

SHAMEEM AKTHER, J.

1. This appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is filed by the appellants/plaintiffs, aggrieved by the order, dated 23.04.2021, passed in I.A. No. 953 of 2018 in O.S. No. 3 of 2016 by the learned V Additional District Judge, Kothagudem, whereby the subject Interlocutory Application filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 9 herein/defendant Nos. 7 to 15, under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC seeking to reject the plaint for want of cause of action was allowed and the plaint was rejected.

2. Heard Sri K. Sai Ram Murthy, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri P. Rama Sharana Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 6, 8 and 9 and perused the record.

3. In spite of service of notice on respondent Nos. 3, 7, 10 to 12, 14 and 15, there is no appearance on their behalf. Notice sent to respondent No. 13 returned un-served with postal endorsement “No such person in that address.” Hence, notice on respondent No. 13 deemed to be served.

4. The appellants/plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 3 of 2016 against the defendants on the file of the Court below seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The defendants filed written statement and the suit is coming up for framing of issues. At that stage, the respondent Nos. 1 to 9 herein/defendant Nos. 7 to 15 filed the subject I.A. No. 953 of 2018 under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC seeking to reject the plaint, contending that the suit schedule properties are the self acquired properties of late Bansilal Lahoti; Late Bansilal Lahoti died on 10.02.2009 leaving behind eight sons and two daughters; The wife of Late Bansilal Lahoti predeceased him in the year 2003; Late Bansilal Lahoti, during his life time, bequeathed the suit schedule properties by executing a Will Deed, dated 20.05.2007; As per the said Will Deed, the father of the appellants herein (defendant No. 1), who is the class-I legal heir of late Bansilal Lahoti and who is still alive, is entitled for his share in the suit schedule properties; The appellants/plaintiffs, being the grand sons of late Bansilal Lahoti and sons of defendant No. 1, have no right to claim partition of the suit schedule properties during the lifetime of defendant No. 1, as they are not Class-I legal heirs of late Bansilal Lahoti and as such, the appellants/plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit for partition of the suit schedule properties.

5. The Court below, vide impugned order, dated 23.04.2021, allowed the subject I.A. and rejected the plaint holding that natural sons and daughters are placed as Class-I heirs in the Hindu Succession Act; Grandsons cannot claim partition of joint family properties, so long as their father is alive; The appellants/plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2, who are the grand sons of late Bansilal Lahoti and sons of defendant No. 1 who is still alive, cannot maintain a suit for partition of suit schedule properties, which are joint family properties; The appellants/ plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit for partition; and the plaint does not disclose any valid cause of action to file the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants/plaintiffs filed this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs would contend that the impugned order is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The Court below erred in rejecting the plaint on the ground that the there is no cause of action. There are specific recitals in Para 5 of the plaint that late Bansilal Lahoti, as a Karta of Hindu Joint family, established different businesses at different places in Yellandu and acquired some properties and also established businesses at Khammam town and the plaintiffs and defendants were discharging their respective duties as per the directions of the Karta of the family. Since the suit schedule properties are joint family properties, all the plaintiffs and defendants are entitled to share the same in the ratio mentioned in the plaint