1. Anil Singh Wazir-respondent No.1 filed a Suit seeking setting aside of Agreement dated 31st August, 1991 executed by Mohan Lal Wazir-respondent No.2 alienating land measuring 3 kanals and 3 marlas comprised in Khasra No. 782/198 situated at Village Kun-Drorian, Katra, and the structures raised thereon, besides for joint possession thereof, against petitioner- Krishan Lal Thakur, claiming 1/4th share therein. The Suit was dismissed by Sub-Judge, Katra on 19.10.2006 holding that it lacked Cause of action and was, therefore, non-maintainable. Issue No.1, raised in this behalf was, accordingly, decided against respondent- Plaintiff. 2. Aggrieved by dismissal of his Suit, respondent-Anil Singh Wazir questioned the order of the Trial Court in Appeal. 3. Allowing the Appeal, learned District Judge, Reasi, set aside learned Sub-Judge, Katra's order, aggrieved whereby, the Appellant-defendant has approached this Court by this Civil Ist Miscellaneous Appeal. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned Trial Court dismissed respondent No.1's Suit taking the view that the subject matter of the Suit being self acquired property of respondent No.1's paternal grandmother, Smt. Nirmala Devi, the respondent would have no right therein and hence his Suit questioning the Agreement dealing with the Suit property was not maintainable. 6. Respondent No.1's Suit was dismissed without allowing him opportunity to substantiate his Claim as set out in the Plaint that the Suit property was not the self acquired property of his grandmother and as a matter of fact, it was ancestral property which the grandmother had purchased out of the funds and benefits accrued to her from the property inherited by her from her deceased husband. It was further indicated by the respondent in the Plaint that the property being ancestral, would devolve only on the coparceners. 7. Reading the respondent's Plaint as a whole would reveals that he had not admitted the Suit property, self acquired property of his paternal grandmother and had rather set up a specific case that the property being ancestral and coparcenary, having come into the hands of his paternal grandmother, out of the funds generated by the ancestral property, could not be dealt with by his father affecting his rights therein. 8. It is settled proposition of law that a Plaint may be rejected only if it indicated no cause of action or it was otherwise not maintainable under any law for the time being in force. 8. It is settled proposition of law that a Plaint may be rejected only if it indicated no cause of action or it was otherwise not maintainable under any law for the time being in force. The maintainability of the Plaint, is required to be seen on the basis of what was contained in the Plaint and on no other material, relied upon or pleaded by the defendants, if the maintainability of the Suit had to be considered before its trial. 9. In this view of the matter, the learned Trial Judge could not have dismissed the respondent's Suit without allowing him opportunity to prove his specific case that the Suit property was ancestral property and not the self acquired property of his grandmother. 10. The view taken by the Appellate Court in upsetting the order of Trial Court, holding that the Suit was not liable to be rejected in view of the case set up by the respondent therein, is well reasoned and does not suffer from any error of law, warranting interference in Appeal. 11. There is, therefore, no merit in this Appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed.