G.A. SURESH Vs. RATHNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is listed for admission today. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) In this revision petition, the order impugned is rejection of the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. The very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this revision petitioner had purchased the property vide sale deed dtd. 28/2/2004 and the very contention before the Trial Court is that as per Sec. 6(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the daughter of coparcener is barred from claiming share in any coparcener property which is alienated before 20/12/2004. Hence, invoked Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint.

(3.) This application was resisted by filing the objection statement by the plaintiff contending that the suit is filed for the relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule property. It is further contended that without the trial, this application is not maintainable. It is contended that the plaintiff had no knowledge of the sale deed and the question of barred by any law is mixed question of law and fact and the same has to be considered during the course of trial.