JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. Almost nine years after filing of the written statement, defendant No.1 moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (a, c and d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC in short) for rejection of the plaint. The application was dismissed by the learned trial court on 8.8.2022, hence defendant No.1 has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner was defendant No.1 before the learned trial court. He is father of the plaintiff (present respondent No.1). Parties hereinafter are being referred to as per their status before the learned trial court. 2. Facts : 2 (i). Plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed a civil suit on 17.3.2012 praying for a decree of declaration to the effect that suit property was Joint Hindu Coparcenary Property. Plaintiff had birthright in the same being a Coparcenar. Defendant No.1 alienated the suit property by executing gift/sale deeds. Declaration was accordingly sought that three sale deeds registered on 31.3.2004, 17.3.2011 and 17.3.2011, respectively along with gift deed registered on 15.10.2005 be declared as illegal, null, void and not binding upon plaintiff’s rights. Consequential relief of possession was also prayed for. 2 (ii). Defendants No.1, 4 and 5 filed a common written statement on 10.12.2012, whereas defendant No.2 filed his separate written statement on 26.12.2012. The present petitioner (defendant No.1) in the common written statement took up various preliminary objections viz. Suit not valued properly for the purpose of jurisdiction, proper court fee not paid, plaint disclosing no cause of action and the suit have not been filed within the limitation period. On merits, it was asserted that suit land was not Joint Hindu Coparcenary Property. Rather, it was self acquired property of defendant No.1 and he was competent to deal with the same in any manner. The sale deeds and gift deed were validly executed by defendant No.1, in accordance with law. 2 (iii). On 6.10.2020, defendant No.1 moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (a, c and d) CPC, seeking rejection of the paint. The rejection was primarily sought on the grounds that (i) the plaint did not disclose any cause of action and (ii) plaintiff’s claim was barred by law of limitation. Plaintiff filed his reply and opposed the application. On 6.10.2020, defendant No.1 moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (a, c and d) CPC, seeking rejection of the paint. The rejection was primarily sought on the grounds that (i) the plaint did not disclose any cause of action and (ii) plaintiff’s claim was barred by law of limitation. Plaintiff filed his reply and opposed the application. He pleaded that cause of action was amply disclosed in the plaint and that the suit filed by him was within the prescribed period of limitation in terms of Articles 109 and 110 of the Limitation Act. Learned trial court vide its order dated 8.8.2022 dismissed the application by holding that plaint disclosed cause of action to proceed further in the matter and it could not be stated at that stage that the relief claimed was barred by law of limitation. It was further observed that in the facts of the case, the question with respect to nature of suit property can be considered after appreciation of evidence. 2 (iv). Aggrieved against dismissal of his application, defendant No.1 has assailed the order dated 8.8.2022 in this petition. Contentions : 3 (i). Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant No.1 contended that the plaint presented by respondent No.1 does not disclose any cause of action. That as per Mutation No. 534, attested on 10.9.1958 relied upon by the plaintiff in plaint, the suit land had come to defendant No.1 in gift from S/Shri Uttam and Baru. Hence, the suit land in the hands of defendant No.1 became his self acquired property. Defendant No.1 had become exclusive owner of the suit land and was thus, competent to deal with the same in any manner in accordance with law, therefore, the sale and gift deeds questioned in the plaint were validly executed by defendant No.1 being his self acquired property. It was further submitted that limitation for challenging the sale/gift deeds of the self acquired property in terms of Article 58/59 of Limitation Act is three years. The suit filed by respondent No.1 challenging the validity of the sale/gift deeds was beyond the time limit of three years set out under law. In support of his submissions, reliance was placed on 2020 (7) SCC 366 , titled as Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead through legal representatives and others, Latest HLJ 2021 (2) 934, titled as Amar Singh and others Vs. In support of his submissions, reliance was placed on 2020 (7) SCC 366 , titled as Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead through legal representatives and others, Latest HLJ 2021 (2) 934, titled as Amar Singh and others Vs. Vishal Kumar, 2004 (3) SCC 137 , titled as Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and others Vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner and others, 2022 (2) Sim. LC (SC) 979, titled as Rajpal Singh Vs. Saroj (deceased) through LRs and another. 3 (ii). Defending the impugned order, learned counsel for the plaintiff(present respondent) controverted the submissions of the petitioner. It was submitted that the plaint disclosed a legal and valid cause of action. Plaintiff’s case was that the property in question is Hindu Coparcenary Property. Plaintiff had birth- right in the same being a coparcenar. It is on that basis assertions have been made in the paint about incompetence of defendant No.1 to execute the sale/gift deeds qua the suit property. Learned counsel further submitted that the plaint specifically mentions that cause of action to file the suit accrued in favour of plaintiff on various dates when the sale/gift deeds were executed by defendant No.1. Under Articles 109 and 110 of the Limitation Act, the limitation for challenging alienation of ancestral property is 12 years. The first sale deed in point of time assailed by the plaintiff was registered on 31.3.2004. The civil suit was instituted on 17.3.2012 that is within the prescribed period of limitation of 12 years. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance upon 2019 (15) SCC 46 , titled as Alpana Gupta through Power of Attorney Holder Vs. APG Towers Private Limited and another, 2018 (6) SCC 422 , titled as Chhotanben and another Vs. Kiritbhai Jal Krushnabhai Thakkar and others, 2015 (8) SCC 331 , titled as P.V. Guru Raj Reddy represented by GPA Laxmi Narayan Reddi and another Vs. P. Neeradha Reddy and others and 2007 (14) SCC 183 titled as C. Natrajan Vs. Ashim Bai and another. Observations 4. Heard learned counsel on both sides and gone through the record. It will be appropriate to first take note of legal principles relevant for deciding the lis. 4(i). Only on the basis of averments made in the plaint, it has to be ascertained as to whether cause of action is made out or not. Ashim Bai and another. Observations 4. Heard learned counsel on both sides and gone through the record. It will be appropriate to first take note of legal principles relevant for deciding the lis. 4(i). Only on the basis of averments made in the plaint, it has to be ascertained as to whether cause of action is made out or not. For finding out the same, the entire pleadings in the plaint will have to be read and that too at their face value. At this stage, the defence taken by defendants cannot be looked into. Reading of the averments made in the plaint should not only be formal but also meaningful. If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action and a meaningful reading thereof would show that the pleadings are manifestly vexatious and merit-less, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, then the Court should exercise its power under Order 7 Rue 11 CPC and such suit has to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing itself. [Re:- AIR 2021 (SC), 4594 titled as Rajendra Bajora & others Vs. Hemant Kumar Jalan and others). 4(ii). Power conferred under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is a drastic one and the conditions precedent to exercise such powers are stringent. Only if the averments in the plaint ex facie do not disclose a cause of action or on a reading thereof the suit appears to be barred under any law, the plaint can be rejected. In all other situations, the claims will have to be adjudicated in the course of the trial. [Re:- 2015 (8) SCC 331 , titled as P.V. Guru Raj Reddy represented by GPA Laxmi Narayan Reddy and another Vs. P. Neeradha Reddy and others. 4(iii). In (2020) 7 SCC 366 , Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali) defendants’ contention in an application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was that suit filed by the plaintiffs was bared by limitation and that no cause of action had been disclosed in the plaint. Defendants submitted that sale deed dated 2.7.2009 could have been challenged within three years i.e. on or before 2.7.2012, whereas suit was filed on 15.12.2014. It was held that “cause of action’ means every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove if traversed in order to support his right to judgment. Defendants submitted that sale deed dated 2.7.2009 could have been challenged within three years i.e. on or before 2.7.2012, whereas suit was filed on 15.12.2014. It was held that “cause of action’ means every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove if traversed in order to support his right to judgment. It consists of a bundle of material facts, which are necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to entitle him to the reliefs claimed in the suit.” “………......The test for exercising the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is that if the averments made in the plaintiff are taken in entirety, in conjunction with the documents relied upon, would the same result in a decree being passed.” “………...………… It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it in isolation. It is the substance and not merely the form, which has to be looked into. The plaint has to be construed as it states, without addition or sub-straction of words. If the allegations in the plaint prima facie show a cause of action, the Court can embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations are true in fact…………………..” 4(iv). Hon’ble the Supreme Court in 2018(6) SCC 422 , titled as Chhotanben and anr. Vs. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar and ors. has held that ‘in the context of totality of averments in the plaint and the relief claimed, which of the Articles from amongst Articles 56, 58, 59, 65 or 110 or any other Article of Limitation will apply to the facts of that cases may have to be considered at the appropriate stage.” Relevant observations are as under : “xx xx xx 11. After having cogitated over the averments in the plaint and the reasons recorded by the Trial Court as well as the High Court, we have no manner of doubt that the High Court committed manifest error in reversing the view taken by the Trial Court that the factum of suit being barred by limitation, was a triable issue in the fact situation of the present case. We say so because the appellants (plaintiffs) have asserted that until 2013 they had no knowledge whatsoever about the execution of the registered sale deed concerning their ancestral property. Further, they have denied the thumb impressions on the registered sale deed as belonging to them and have alleged forgery and impersonation. We say so because the appellants (plaintiffs) have asserted that until 2013 they had no knowledge whatsoever about the execution of the registered sale deed concerning their ancestral property. Further, they have denied the thumb impressions on the registered sale deed as belonging to them and have alleged forgery and impersonation. In the context of totality of averments in the plaint and the reliefs claimed, which of the Articles from amongst Articles 56, 58, 59, 65 or 110 or any other Article of the Limitation Act will apply to the facts of the present case, may have to be considered at the appropriate stage. 12. What is relevant for answering the matter in issue in the context of the application under Order VII Rule 11(d), is to examine the averments in the plaint. The plaint is required to be read as a whole. The defence available to the defendants or the plea taken by them in the written statement or any application filed by them, cannot be the basis to decide the application under Order VII Rule 11(d). Only the averments in the plaint are germane. It is common ground that the registered sale deed is dated 18th October, 1996. The limitation to challenge the registered sale deed ordinarily would start running from the date on which the sale deed was registered. However, the specific case of the appellants (plaintiffs) is that until 2013 they had no knowledge whatsoever regarding execution of such sale deed by their brothers - original defendant Nos.1 & 2, in favour of Jaikrishnabhai Prabhudas Thakkar or defendant Nos.3 to 6. They acquired that knowledge on 26.12.2012 and immediately took steps to obtain a certified copy of the registered sale deed and on receipt thereof they realised the fraud played on them by their brothers concerning the ancestral property and two days prior to the filing of the suit, had approached their brothers (original defendant Nos.1 & 2) calling upon them to stop interfering with their possession and to partition the property and provide exclusive possession of half (1/2) portion of the land so designated towards their share. However, when they realized that the original defendant Nos.1 & 2 would not pay any heed to their request, they had no other option but to approach the court of law and filed the subject suit within two days therefrom. However, when they realized that the original defendant Nos.1 & 2 would not pay any heed to their request, they had no other option but to approach the court of law and filed the subject suit within two days therefrom. According to the appellants, the suit has been filed within time after acquiring the knowledge about the execution of the registered sale deed. In this context, the Trial Court opined that it was a triable issue and declined to accept the application filed by respondent No.1 (defendant No.5) for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d). That view commends to us. xx xx xx” 4(v). In the backdrop of above settled legal principles, the averments made in the plaint may now be noticed. Following genealogy table depicting the relationship of parties is incorporated in the plaint :- SADHU UTTAM SINGH BARU (ISSULESS) RAM DUTT BUDH RAM RATTAN SINGH JEEVAN SINGH Defendant BHARMA DEVI BHUPENDER plaintiff BISHAN SINGH SOMA DEVI NARENDER REETA DEVI SHAKUNTLA The pleaded case of the plaintiff is that:- defendant No.1(petitioner herein) was a copercenar along with his father Uttam Singh and uncle Baru in Hindu coparcenary. The coparcenary originated from the common male ancestor i.e. late Shri Sadhu and when family settlement was done by Shri Sadhu, defendant No.1 had a birth-right in the coparcenary property that was held and maintained by Shri Sadhu being Karta of the Joint Hindu Family. However, even after the family settlement, Uttam Singh and Baru remained joint and constituted a joint Hindu Family along with defendant No.1 who was then in his adolescence and with Shri Rattan (younger brother of Sh. Jeevan Singh) on his birth. Plaintiff pleads that four persons, namely, Uttam, Baru, Rattan and defendant No.1 constituted a joint Hindu family having property measuring 47-04 bigha in Mauza Kolar, Tehsil Poanta Sahib, District Sirmaur and all of them used to cultivate the same. That in the year 1958 a family settlement was arrived at. In terms of the family settlement, Uttam and Baru relinquished their joint Hindu coparcenary property measuring 47-04 bigha in Mauza Kolar, Tehsil Poanta Sahib, District Sirmaur in favour of defendant No.1 and Rattan, though all of them remained joint in mess and residence. According to the plaint, the plaintiff was born and became part of this joint Hindu family and acquired birthright in the joint Hindu family property measuring 47-04 bighas of land. According to the plaint, the plaintiff was born and became part of this joint Hindu family and acquired birthright in the joint Hindu family property measuring 47-04 bighas of land. On this basis the contention of the plaintiff is that defendant No.1 Jeevan could not have executed sale/gift deeds of joint Hindu family property. It would be appropriate to extract relevant paragraphs from the plaintiff in order to decipher the nature of assertions made by the plaintiff :- “3. That defendant No.1 was a coparcenar along with his father Shri Uttam and uncle Shri Baru in Hindu originating from common male ancestor i.e. Late Shri Sadhu and when family settlement was done by Late Shri Sadhu, the defendant No.1 was having a birth right in the coparcenary property held and maintained by Late Shri Sadhu being Karta of the Joint Hindu Family. Even after the family settlement, Shri Uttam Singh and Shri Baru remained joint and constituted a joint Hindu family along with defendant No.1, who was in his adolescence then and with Shri Rattan [Younger brother of Shri Jeevan Singh] on his birth. These four persons namely Shri Uttam, Shri Baru, Shri Rattan and defendant no.1 constituted a joint Hindu family having property measuring 47-04 Bigha in Mauza Kolar, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh and all of them used to cultivate the same. 4. That in the year 1958 a Family settlement was arrived and Shri Uttam & Shri Baru relinquished their right in joint Hindu Coparcenary Property measuring 47-04 Bigha in Mauza Kolar, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh in favour of defendant No.1 and Shri Rattan, though all of them remained joint in mess and residence. 5. That plaintiff was born and became part of this joint Hindu Family and acquired a birthright in the joint Hindu Family property measuring 47-04 Bigha of land. 6. That in the year 1964 a family partition took place between defendant No.1 Shri Jeevan Singh and Shri Rattan and Mutation No.606 was attested on 09.12.1964 in this regard and after the partition, land measuring 21-05 Bigha came to defendant No.1 as KARTA of his family and land measuring 21-05 Bigha came to Shri Rattan as KARTA of his family, whereas, land measuring 04 -14 Bigha under the ABADI of the families remained joint between them. 7. 7. That plaintiff and his other brothers and sisters constituted a joint Hindu Family with defendant No.1 and all of them acquired birth right in the family property being coparcenars, which was maintained by defendant No.1 being KARTA of the family though, the same stood in the name of defendant no.1 as owner in the Revenue record. 8. That from the last few years, defendant no.1 has been in complete control of his son Shri Narender i.e. defendant no.4 and his metal facilities have been dominated by him so much so that he succeeds in getting the land measuring 3-18 Bigha and 7-08 Bigha transferred in favour of his minor son and to himself respectively. And compelled the defendant no.1 to make further transfers so that he could have money for his personal use. 9. That the defendant no.1 sold land comprised in Khasra No. 456/430 measuring 03-18 Bigha for a sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- vide sale deed bearing registration No.393 dated 31.03.2004 to the defendant no.2 and gifted land comprised in Khasra No. 649/422/185 measuring 03-18 Bigha vide gift deed bearing registration No.1455 dated 15.10.2005 to the defendant No.3. 10. That defendant no.1 further sold land measuring 7-09 Bigha out of Khasra No. 420/185 for a sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- vide sale deed bearing registration No.345 dated 17.03.2011 to defendant no.4 and land measuring 0-10 Bigha out of Khasra No. 420/185 for a sale consideration of Rs. 30,000/- vide sale deed bearing registration No.346 dated 17.03.2011 to defendant No.5. 11. That all the above said transfers of the land were made by the defendant no.1 out of joint Hindu Coparcenary Property and were neither for legal necessity nor for the benefit of estate, whereas defendant no.1 being KARTA of the family was required to show greater degree of care and prudence in managing the affairs of family including property. However, defendant no.1 failed to fulfill duties of the Karta and have sold and gifted the above mentioned land in gross neglect of his duties and responsibility. Thus all the above said transfers are illegal, null and void and not binging upon the rights of the plaintiff as per the establish principles of Hindu Law.” It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner (defendant No.1) that suit property was self acquired property in the hands of defendant No.1 and he was competent to dispose of the same. To buttress this submission, an attempt has been made by learned counsel to read Annexure P -3 copy of Mutation No. 534 attested on 10.9.1958 in a particular manner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner in terms of this document, the suit property had come in the hands of defendant No.1 by way of gift and thereby lost its status of being Joint Hindu Coparcenary Property. This assertion of defendant No.1 cannot be accepted at this stage. It is not the case of the plaintiff that suit property devolved upon defendant No.1 by means of a gift, as is contended by defendant No.1. Petitioner/Defendant No.1 has endeavoured to interpret the document (Mutation No. 534) (Annexure P-3) in a particular manner. Such interpretation cannot be resorted to at this stage. No such document directly and specifically evidencing the gift of suit property in favour of defendant No.1 is otherwise available on record. Petitioner has supplied translation of Annexure P-3, wherein reference has been made of some property having gone to defendant No.1 by way of gift. Whether this document pertains to entire suit property, whether the translation of this document supplied by the defendant/petitioner is authentic more so when plaintiff disputes the translation and effect of the documents, whether property actually mentioned there passed on as a gift, who passed it on, the effect of such inheritance etc. are the assertions, which in the pleaded facts can be determined during trial. All these aspects are to be proved in the trial by leading cogent evidence including oral evidence, if any. On the basis of ex facie averments made in the plaint, it cannot be said at this stage that suit property that came in the hands of Jeevan Singh was in form of gift and became his self acquired property. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the plaint does not disclose cause of action. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff for declaration that the suit land was joint Hindu coparcenary property and he had a birth-right in the same. It is for the plaintiff to prove this assertion in accordance with law by leading evidence documentary and/or ocular. Putting forth this assertion, the suit property is joint Hindu Coparcenary Property, the plaintiff has also challenged the sale deeds and gift deed executed by defendant No.1. It is for the plaintiff to prove this assertion in accordance with law by leading evidence documentary and/or ocular. Putting forth this assertion, the suit property is joint Hindu Coparcenary Property, the plaintiff has also challenged the sale deeds and gift deed executed by defendant No.1. In case the suit property is eventually held to be joint Hindu Coparcenary Property, then prima facie challenge would be within the limitation provided in terms of Articles 109 and 110 of the Limitation Act, whereunder period of 12 years is available for instituting such suits. The suit was presented within this period. 5. In view of above, the order of the leaned trial court dismissing petitioner/defendant No.1’s application under order 7 rule 11 CPC moved 09 years after filing of the written statement does not call for any interference. Present petition is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, clarified that objections made for adjudication of application under Order 7 Rue 11 CPC shall have no bearing on the decision of the case on merits. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.