JUDGMENT : Rohit Arya, J. 1. Petitioner/defendant/husband is before this Court taking exception to the impugned order dated 11.12.2020. Petitioner's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. 2. The respondent/wife and three children are plaintiffs in the suit seeking relief that they are entitled for half share of the property managed by petitioner/husband (hereinafter respondents No. 1 to 4 shall be referred as plaintiffs and petitioner shall be referred as defendant). 3. Suit has been filed on the premise that marriage was solemnized between plaintiff no. 1 and defendant 17 years ago. They were blessed with three children. Since October 2019 defendant had ousted plaintiffs from the home. Prior thereto, defendant was in the habit of coming home in drunken state and picking up fights with plaintiff no. 1 and also used to physically assault her. Children were also traumatized. As a result, the home atmosphere was full of tension. To add pain to the injury, defendant has also kept a lady with him by the name Pushpa and living like a husband and wife. He has been in the habit of offending plaintiffs on one pretext or the other. Now gradually the defendant is creating third party right in the existing properties managed by him. 4. In the aforesaid backdrop of factual matrix, plaintiffs have filed the suit alleging mishandling of the property and alienation thereof to their prejudice with the assertion that they are entitled for their share in the property. 5. The defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC styling himself to be the exclusive owner of the properties allegedly self-acquired by him. Hence according to him, plaintiffs have no right, title and interest over the properties under the Hindu law, therefore, no cause of action had arisen for plaintiffs to bring the suit for the aforesaid relief. 6. The trial court while rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has opined that only plaint averments are to be seen for deciding such an application. Besides, the plaintiffs cannot be non-suited for their claim in the properties as asserted in the plaint on the basis of statements made in the application and at variance with plaint assertions. The claim of share in the properties or right of succession are not pure questions of law instead they are mixed question of law and fact. Besides, the plaintiffs cannot be non-suited for their claim in the properties as asserted in the plaint on the basis of statements made in the application and at variance with plaint assertions. The claim of share in the properties or right of succession are not pure questions of law instead they are mixed question of law and fact. Unless parties lead evidence in support of their pleadings, said questions cannot be answered. Accordingly the application has been rejected. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court has applied correct principles of law while rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Section 115 of CPC. 8. The revision petition sans merit is hereby dismissed.