JUDGMENT M.V. Tamaskar, J. 1. This is revision against the order passed by the Second Addl. Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bilaspur, rejecting an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the suit for partition is not maintainable. 2. Shri Umesh Trivedi, learned Counsel for the applicant, submits that the order passed by the Lower Court suffers from illegality inasmuch as it has not properly complied with the provisions of Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act as also the principles laid down in Hindu Law, paragraph 363. 3. I have gone through the pleadings, heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the question for consideration in the present case is whether the suit as filed was incompetent on the ground that no suit for partition can be filed by a female of the Hindu joint family. In the instant case, the suit is filed by the step mother against her step son claiming that she is entitled to half share of the property. It is admitted that the plaintiff became widow in the year 1962, after coming into force of Hindu Succession Act whereunder she became absolute owner of the property, and thereby acquired absolute right over half share in the joint family property. 4. Sub-Section (3) of Section 3 of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 reads thus : "3 (3) Any interest devolving on a Hindu widow under the provisions of this Section shall be the limited interest known as a Hindu Woman's estate, provided however that she shall have the same right of claiming partition as a male owner." 5. In Puranlat v. Smt. Rampyaribai (1965 MPLJ, Note 68) this Court held that no suit by widow mother for partition and separate possesson can be filed. However, it is not clear whether fn the said case the lady was governed by Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 or after coming into force of Hindu Succession Act, 1936. In the instant case, the lady suffered widow hard in the year 1962 and has thus become the absolute owner of the property to the extent of her share. 6. Shri Trivedi, learned Counsel for the applicant, further submitted that under Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act there is a prohibition from claiming any partition in respect of home wholly occupied by members of the family. 6. Shri Trivedi, learned Counsel for the applicant, further submitted that under Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act there is a prohibition from claiming any partition in respect of home wholly occupied by members of the family. In the instant case, it appears from the plaint averments in para 3(a) that the dwelling house is not occupied only by the members of the family but by the outsiders. 7. The question for consideration is whether the suit which is for partition in respect of agricultural land as well as dwelling house is barred as claimed by the applicant and the plaint ought to have been rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 OPG. 8. Prima facie it appears that on the averments as made in the plaint the suit was competent. It has been held in Fatechand Ganeshram Agrawal v. Wasudee Shrawan Dalal and Anr. (AIR 1948 Nagpur 334) that for purposes of deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC the averment made in the plaint ought to be accented. This proposition is not challenged by the other side. Farther in Smt. Usha Majumdar v. Smt. Smriti Basu ( AIR 1988 Cal. 115 ), it has been held that if the part of dwelling house is occupied by outsiders, the suit for partition can be filed by the family members. The same view is taken in Makkamal v., Chitravadi Vermal ( AIR 1980 Mad. 243 ). It is held thus : "Section 23 in intended to respect one of the ancient Hindu tenents which treasured the dwelling house of the family as an impartible asset between a female member and a male member. Where, however, the only supervisors of the family were a male and a female and the former chose to sell his moiety in the dwelling house thus introducing a stranger into it, the dwelling house should be held to have lost its characteristics of a dwelling house and became an ordinary property. Section 23 would not in such circumstances bar the femal member from suing for partition and possession of her share in the property." 9. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any illegality. The revision is dismissed. The suit shall proceed according to law. No order as to costs.