The daughters of a coparcener have no locus to question alienation made prior to the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, and the court can reject a plaint if it is manifestly vexatious and without merit.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Aradhe, J.

1. This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for short) has been filed against the Order dated 03.01.2013 passed by the Trial Court by which suit filed by the appellants seeking the relief of partition and separate possession has been dismissed in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code.

2. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to an agricultural land measuring 2 acres and 30 guntas situate at Mydanahalli Village, Yelawala Hobli, Mysore Taluk. The aforesaid land was recorded in the revenue records in the name of defendants 1 to 3. The defendants 1 to 3 by a registered sale deed dated 08.07.1996 sold the aforesaid land to defendant No. 4 for a consideration of Rs. 2,75,000/-. The sale deed contains a recital as to delivery of possession. Thereafter, the name of respondent No. 1 was mutated in the revenue records.

3. On 05.11.2011, the plaintiffs/appellants who are children of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 viz., the vendors of defendant No. 4 filed a suit seeking the relief of partition and separate possession inter alia on the ground that plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 constitute a Joint Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). It was pleaded that late Javeregowda who was the common ancestor of plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3, was the owner of land measuring 2 acres and 30 guntas situate at Mydanahalli Village, Yelawala Hobli, Mysore Taluk. On death of Javeregowda, the aforesaid land devolved on defendants 1 to 3 by survivorship. It was further pleaded that plaintiffs being the children of defendants 1 to 3 have got undivided right, title and interest in the aforesaid property and no partition or division of the land in question has taken place amongst the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 3. It was also pleaded that for couple of months preceding filing of the suit, defendant No. 4 is trying to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff on the ground that he has purchased the land in question. It was averred that cause of action for filing of the suit accrued on 05.11.2011 i.e., the date on which the plaintiffs demanded partition. Accordingly, the relief of partition and separate possession in respect of 5/18th share of plaintiffs as well as 6/21st shares of plaintiffs 6 to 17 was sought.

4. The defendant No. 4 filed an application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code inter alia on the ground that he had purchased the land in question by a registered sale deed dated 08.07.1996 prior to advent of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which came into force with effect from 09.09.2005. It was pleaded that daughters of a coparcener viz., plaintiffs 1, 2 and 3, 5 to 7, 10, 11 to 15 and 17 have no locus standi to file the suit as they are not entitled to challenge the validity of the sale deed executed prior to 09.08.2005. It was averred that the suit challenging the validity of alienation made by Karta of the family has to be filed within 12 years from the date of delivery of possession of property to the purchaser and therefore, the suit is barred by limitation. It was also averred that some of the plaintiffs were minor on the date of execution of the sale deed and on attaining majority, have not challenged the sale deed within a period of three years. It was also pleaded that plaintiffs 16 and 17(b) were not even born on the date of alienation of the land in question. It was pleaded that the suit is barred under the law as well as by law of limitation and the same was liable to be dismissed The plaintiffs filed an objection statement to the aforesaid application and asserted that plaintiffs are in possession of the land in question and prayed for dismissal of the application.

5. The Trial Court by an Order dated 03.01.2013 by taking into account proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act as amended with