JUDGMENT : 1. The present revision application emanates from the order dared 22.10.2019 passed by the 17th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara rejecting the application filed by the applicant-original defendant No.4 by invoking the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking rejection of the plaint. 2. Learned advocate Mr.Pandya appearing for the applicant-defendant No.4 has submitted that the entire plaint discloses an illusionary cause of action and has no relation with the prayers sought in the plaint, and hence the plaint is liable to rejected. He has invited attention of this Court to the prayers made in the plaint and has submitted that the same are also ill-conceived since the prayer clause is absolutely silent with regard to sale deed, which has been executed in favour of the defendant No.4 by the defendant Nos.2 and 3. It is further submitted that the entire suit is premised on the statement of fact made that the suit land, has been sold by the father of the plaintiffs along with the defendant No.1 initially by the registered sale deed dated 10.02.2009 to the defendant Nos.2 and 3 is without authority of law. It is submitted that in the plaint, it is averred that the father of the plaintiffs had no authority to sell the said land since the same was an ancestral property. 3. Learned advocate Mr.Pandya has placed reliance on the decision off the Full Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Imamul Hassan Choudhary Vs. State, AIR 82 PATNA 89 for the proposition of law that as per the Muslim Law, right or interest in the property by the hiers can only be acquired, after the death of the father and during his life time, the major sons do not have any share or interest in the said property and it is absolute authority of the father to deal with such property. He has further submitted that the cause of action and the prayers as mentioned in the plaint appear to be absolutely ill-conceived. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs have already assailed the sale deed dated 10.02.2009 by instituting Special Civil Suit No.322 of 2012, which is still pending and during pendency of the said suit, the present revision application is filed. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs have already assailed the sale deed dated 10.02.2009 by instituting Special Civil Suit No.322 of 2012, which is still pending and during pendency of the said suit, the present revision application is filed. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned order may be quashed and set aside and the plaint may be ordered to be returned. 4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Malkan appearing for the original plaintiffs has submitted that the order passed by the Court below is required to be sustained since the same is appropriately passed. It is submitted that the plaintiffs have right, title and interest in the said property and their father, during his life time, has executed initially the sale deed dated 10.02.2009, which was without authority of law and without consulting them and hence, they were constrained to institute the suit being Special Civil Suit No.322 of 2012, which is pending. He has further submitted that subsequent sale deed dated 09.08.2017, which has been executed in favour of the defendant No.4, has given rise to institute the said suit in order to secure their possession. It is thus, submitted that the present revision application may not be entertained. 5. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and also perused the documents as pointed out by them. 6. This Court had apprised learned advocate Mr.Malkan about the consequences, which may fall on the pending suit of 2012 in view of the order passed in the present application however, he has sought to invite an order from this Court. 7. It is well settled proposition of law, that while dealing with the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the averments made in the plaint as a whole and accompanied documents are only required to be examined and defence of the defendants cannot be considered. 8. In the present matter, the recitals of the plaint reveal that the plaintiffs have averred that the father of the plaintiffs had no authority to execute the sale deed dated 10.02.2009 in favour of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 and they have challenged the said sale deed by instituting Special Civil Suit No.322 of 2012, which is pending. During the pendency of the suit, the father of the plaintiff has passed away on 20.08.2016. During the pendency of the suit, the father of the plaintiff has passed away on 20.08.2016. It appears that during pendency of the said suit, the land is further sold to the defendant No.4 by registered sale deed dated 09.08.2017. Hence, the plaintiffs have initiated the suit for such prayers, though the earlier suit challenging 2009 sale deed is pending. 9. At this stage, it would be interesting to note the prayers made in the plaint: “11.1 The property, described in detail at Para-2 of the Plaint, is our ancestral property and agriculture land which is under lawful possession and occupation of we the plaintiffs. The Respondents in the present case have executed an illegal Sale Deed of the stated immovable property and on the basis thereof, they have committed an act of taking away our lawful possession. The Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare the act as unlawful. 11.2 The property, described at Para-2 of the Plaint, is the ancestral agriculture land of we the plaintiffs and the stated immovable property is under our lawful possession qua the entitlement by ownership. The Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue orders that neither the Respondents in the present case nor their associates have any right or entitlement to create any obstructions or abstain we the plaintiffs from carrying agriculture work at the stated immovable property or collect produce thereof, directly or indirectly.” 10. The prayers made in the plaint are drafted very cleverly and no prayer with regard to setting aside the sale deed dated 09.08.2017 in favour of the defendant No.4 has been sought and instead it is only averred that the defendants may be ordered not to snatch away their legal possession of the suit land. Such a prayer is a consequential prayer and residuary prayer and can only be granted only when the prayer for setting aside the sale deed is made. It is admitted by the plaintiffs that for the suit challenging the first sale deed executed by their father in the year 2009 for very same suit property is still pending. This Court is not apprised of any order passed in that suit. When the defendant no.2 and 3, during the pendency of Special Civil Suit No.322 of 2012 has executed a sale deed in favour of the defendant no.4-applicant, it was always open for the plaintiffs to file appropriate application under Order 1. This Court is not apprised of any order passed in that suit. When the defendant no.2 and 3, during the pendency of Special Civil Suit No.322 of 2012 has executed a sale deed in favour of the defendant no.4-applicant, it was always open for the plaintiffs to file appropriate application under Order 1. R.10 and Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. 11. It is not in dispute that the entire plaint is based on the premise that the concerned suit property has been illegally sold by the father of the plaintiffs in 2009 since the same was ancestral property and could not have been sold by their father since he had not taken them in confidence before selling the suit property. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiffs are governed by the Muslim Law. 12. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the observations made by the Full Bench of Patna High Court in the case of Imamul Hassan Choudhary (supra). “5. The question is whether a Muslim son can be said to be a raiyat during the lifetime of his father, for becoming a land-holder within the meaning of Section 2 (g) of the Act. For becoming a raiyat the person concerned must have a right to hold the land for the purposes of cultivation. Unlike Hindu Law, estate of a deceased Mohamedan if he has died intestate, devolves on his heirs at the moment of his death. Under the Mohamedan Law, birth right is not recognised. The right of an heir apparent or presumptive comes into existence for the first time on the death of the ancestor, and he is not entitled until then to any interest in the property to which he would succeed as an heir if he, survived the ancestor. In the case of Hasan Ali v. Nazo, (1889) ILR 11 All 456, it was held that the "Mohamedan Law does not recognise any ..... interest expectant on the death of another, and till that death occurs which by force of that law gives birth to the right as heir to the person entitled to it according to the rules of succession, he possesses no right at all." Unlike this, in Hindu Law a joint Hindu family consists of all persons lineally descended from a common ancestor, and includes their wives and unmarried daughters. A Hindu coparcenery is a much narrower body than the joint family. It includes only those persons who acquire by birth an interest in the joint or coparcenery property. These are the sons, grandsons and great-grandsons of the holder of the joint property for the time being, in other words, the three generations next to the holder in unbroken male descent. The essence of a coparcenery under the Mitakshara law is a unity of ownership. The ownership of the coparcenery property is in the whole body of coparceners. The interest of a coparcenery is fluctuating one and is capable of being enlarged or diminished in the event of deaths or births in the family as the case may be. It is only on partition that he becomes entitled to a definite share. Until a partition takes place the rights of each coparcener consist in a common possession and common enjoyment of the coparcenery property. The coparcenery property is held in collective ownership by all the coparceners in a quasi-corporate capacity. 6. Now again reverting to the provisions of the Act, it will be noticed that a landholder in order to constitute a family holds, the land in his own right and as a raiyat. As has been seen above a Muslim son or daughter does not have any right or interest in the property in the lifetime of his or her father. According to the Muslim Law, they acquire the right only in the event of the death of the father. It cannot, therefore, be held that a Muslim major son also becomes a land-holder within the lifetime of his father within the meaning of this Act and constitutes a family as defined under Section 2 (g) of the Act. The distinction was noticed by the framers of the law while inserting the explanation of the definition of the word "land-holder" in Section 2 (g) of the Act. A member of undivided Hindu family acquires a right by birth and becomes entitled to a share in the land. He is deemed to be land-holder for the purposes of the Act, whether or not a partition has taken place before the commencement of this Act. Mr. A member of undivided Hindu family acquires a right by birth and becomes entitled to a share in the land. He is deemed to be land-holder for the purposes of the Act, whether or not a partition has taken place before the commencement of this Act. Mr. Chunnilal, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State, submitted that by successive amendments in the Act the meaning of the word "land-holder" was narrowed down, the idea being to lower down the ceiling area. By an amendment made in 1973 the word 'family' was substituted in place of the word 'person' in Section 2 (g) as well as in Section 5. He submitted that what was material was the word 'landholder' and not the word 'family'. Since a Muslim son or daughter could not become a land-holder in the lifetime of his or her father, it is apparent that he cannot claim a separate unit like a major son of a Hindu family.” 13. As per the law enunciated in the aforementioned judgment, the father of the plaintiffs had all right, title and interest of the suit property to dispose of the same till he was alive. Learned Advocate Mr.Malkan appearing for the plaintiff is unable to dispute the aforesaid proposition of law which is applicable to the plaintiffs. The father has exercised his right by executing the sale deed along with defendant no.1 on 10.02.2009 in favor of defendant nos.2 and 3. He has also passed away in 2016. After his death, the defendant no.2 and 3 has sold the land to the present applicant in 2017. Thus, in view of the facts and law as stated herein above, the plaint is barred under Order VII Rule 11(d), hence the plaint was required to be returned. 14. Hence, the present application succeeds. The impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. As a sequel, the plaint is ordered to be rejected.