JUDGMENT : NISHA M. THAKORE, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants-original plaintiffs under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”), being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 25.07.2013 passed below Exh.26 in Regular Civil Suit No.47 of 2012 by learned Additional Civil Judge, Viramgam. 2. By the said impugned judgment and order, the application preferred by the original defendants vide Exh.26 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) of the Code, is allowed and the suit is ordered to be rejected. 3. In nutshell, the facts as pleaded by the present appellants before the trial court, are summarized as under: 3.1 The original plaintiffs had preferred the aforesaid suit in respect of various parcels of agricultural lands bearing revenue survey nos. 892,893, 894, 903, 904, 910, 911 and 941 (for short, ‘suit properties’) at village : Viramgam, District : Ahmedabad. It was pleaded that the suit properties are ancestral and undivided joint family property of the plaintiffs as well as the defendants. It was pleaded that the aforesaid parcels of lands originally belong to Mr. Kalubhai Pirubhai, who expired on 19.06.1946. He was survived by two sons namely Ibrahimbhai Kalubhai and Pirubhai Kalubhai. 3.2 Ibrahimbhai Kalubhai had a wife named Fatimaben Ibrahimbhai. The plaintiffs are the descendants of Ibrahimbhai Kalubhai and Fatimaben Ibrahimbhai. Kalubhai Pirubhai’s second son Pirubhai Kalubhai was married to Karamjibai (Karimabai) Mandubai. The defendants are the descendants of Pirubhai Kalubhai and Karamjibai (Karimabai) Mandubhai. 3.3 It is stated in the plaint that Ibrahimbhai Kalubhai has passed away on 10.10.1971 leaving behind his two sons Mohmad Ibrahimbhai and Abubakar Ibrahimbhai. Mohmad Ibrahimbhai expired in 1980 leaving behind plaintiff no. 1/1 to 1/5 as his legal representatives whereas Abubakar Ibrahimbhai expired in 1987 leaving behind plaintiffs no. 2/1 to 2/11 as his heirs and legal representatives. It is further stated that the second son of Kalubhai viz. Pirubhai Kalubhai also passed away in 1980 leaving behind his seven sons. The heirs of deceased Pirubhai Kalubhai have been joined as defendants in the suit. It was further claimed that the suit properties of ownership of Kalubhai were continued in the joint ownership and possession of the plaintiffs and the defendants. It was further contended that behind their back in collusion with revenue officers, in spite of them cultivating the suit lands, the defendants have deleted their names from the revenue record. It was further claimed that the suit properties of ownership of Kalubhai were continued in the joint ownership and possession of the plaintiffs and the defendants. It was further contended that behind their back in collusion with revenue officers, in spite of them cultivating the suit lands, the defendants have deleted their names from the revenue record. The plaintiffs became aware about such a fact two months prior to the filing of the suit, for which, the plaintiffs have approached the office of Prant Officer by lodging an appeal against the removal of names from the revenue record. 3.4 It is further contended that the plaintiffs became aware about the intention of the defendants of selling away the suit properties when they came across public notice seeking title clearance of the suit properties as notified in daily newspaper i.e. Gujarat Samachar dated 08.01.2012 and Sandesh Newspaper dated 12.01.2012. It is further stated that the objections had been raised by the plaintiffs through their lawyer on 11.01.2012. It is further submitted that since the price of the lands have raised/increased, the defendants have tried to destroy their rights in suit properties by taking shelter of bogus revenue records, in spite of the fact that the suit properties are of joint ownership. 3.5 With such circumstances, it is pleaded that the cause of action has arisen for the plaintiffs to approach the court, when the defendants had responded by giving vague reply on 20.01.2012 denying their right in the suit properties by contending that the said properties belong to their mother, which was bequeathed through their grandmother. By which the plaintiffs claimed to have derived knowledge about their names being deleted from the revenue records, and the defendants trying to dispose of the suit properties including their share in the suit properties, to third parties by sale or any other mode which has given cause of action to the plaintiff to approach the court of Civil Judge. 3.6 The plaintiffs have, therefore, approached the trial court by filing aforesaid suit, which was presented on 31.03.2012 with prayer seeking declaration of one half undivided share in the suit properties. The prayer was also sought for partition of their shares in the suit properties. 3.6 The plaintiffs have, therefore, approached the trial court by filing aforesaid suit, which was presented on 31.03.2012 with prayer seeking declaration of one half undivided share in the suit properties. The prayer was also sought for partition of their shares in the suit properties. The plaintiffs have also prayed for permanent injunction against the defendants by restraining them from alienating the suit properties in any manner as well as not to restrain or interfere with the plaintiffs from entering into the suit properties. 4. Considering the case put forward by the plaintiffs before the trial court, the learned Judge had initially issued summons upon the defendants which was made returnable on 07.05.2012. The defendants have appeared through their learned advocate and had placed on record an application vide Exh.26 filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code for seeking rejection of plaint. The defendants have strongly objected about any right derived by the mother of the plaintiff viz. Fatimaben Ibrahimbhai in the suit properties and consequently, the plaintiffs having derived any right, title or interest in the suit properties. It was submitted that the suit was vexatious, malicious, frivolous and fraudulent, which was filed with a mala fide intention to harass the defendants. According to the defendants, it was an admitted position as otherwise pleaded in the plaint itself by the plaintiff that after the death of Kalubhai Pirubhai in the year-1946, the cause of action had arisen, if any, seeking right, title or interest in the property by Ibrahimbhai Kalubhai. It was further submitted that even if the date of death of Ibrahimbhai Kalubhai was taken, which had occurred on 10.10.1971, no proceedings were initiated by their father, during his lifetime. The defendants have referred to the relevant mutation entries reflected in the revenue record, which contradicts the fact as projected by the plaintiffs in the plaint. 4.1 It was submitted that out of the suit properties, revenue survey no.892 was purchased by Karamjibai (Karimabai) i.e. mother of the defendants and the wife of Pirubhai Kalubhai by registered sale deed dated 10.07.1948. The said fact is recorded in the revenue record vide mutation entry no.1419. It was further submitted that upon the demise of Karamjibai wife of Pirubhai, the suit properties came to be inherited by the defendants herein who are the children and grandchildren of the Karamjibai and Pirubhai. The said fact is recorded in the revenue record vide mutation entry no.1419. It was further submitted that upon the demise of Karamjibai wife of Pirubhai, the suit properties came to be inherited by the defendants herein who are the children and grandchildren of the Karamjibai and Pirubhai. 4.2 With regard to revenue survey nos.893 and 894, the defendants have stated that the property was originally purchased by Pirubhai Kalubhai on 08.02.1961 in a public auction held under Section 10 of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 and the rules made thereunder and after the death of Mr. Pirubhai Kalubhai, the aforesaid property was inherited by the defendants. The reliance was placed on the order passed by the Competent Officer, Evacuee Interest (Separation), Bombay. It was submitted that considering the fact the aforesaid property was Evacuee property, the Civil Court would have no jurisdiction to interfere with any order passed under the aforesaid Act. Even otherwise, the claim of the plaintiff was hopelessly time barred and the case put forward by the defendants, was completely false. 4.3 In respect of revenue survey nos. 903 and 904, it was submitted that aforesaid parcels of lands were purchased by Pirubhai Kalubhai on 28.08.1942 by way of a registered sale deed, the mutation entry no.1206 dated 01.09.1942 was posted on revenue record acknowledging the aforesaid fact. It was, therefore, submitted that the claim put forward by the plaintiffs qua the aforesaid parcels of lands was false and deserves to be dismissed. 4.4 With regard to revenue survey nos.910 and 911, it was submitted that aforesaid suit properties were purchased by Karamjibai Mandubhai, wife of Pirubhai Kalubhai, mother and grandmother of the defendants by registered sale deed dated 23.04.1942. Even the mutation entry being entry no.1419 dated 10.07.1948 was posted in the revenue record acknowledging the aforesaid fact. 4.5 As regards revenue survey no.941, it was submitted that the said parcels of land was also purchased by Karamjibai Mandubai, the wife of Pirubhai Kalubhai and mother and the grandmother of the defendants by registered sale deed dated 21.09.1948. The aforesaid fact was entered in the revenue record vide mutation entry no.1449 dated 16.11.1948. Thus, the aforesaid land was inherited by the defendants upon the sad demise of their mother as well as grandmother. The aforesaid fact was entered in the revenue record vide mutation entry no.1449 dated 16.11.1948. Thus, the aforesaid land was inherited by the defendants upon the sad demise of their mother as well as grandmother. 4.6 By referring to the aforesaid facts, the defendants have objected to the maintainability of the suit as being barred by law of limitation. The prayer was, therefore, sought for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. 5. The learned Civil Judge, upon examination of the pleadings in the plaint, noticed that at initial stage in the plaint, the plaintiff has pleaded that the suit properties were of ownership of their grandfather Kalubhai Pirubhai whereas in their reply to the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the code, it is stated that since their mother Fatimaben was suffering from tuberculosis, their father Madhubhai had purchased the suit properties in the name of Karimabai viz. mother of defendants. Thus, the learned Judge arrived at finding that the plaintiffs have averred contradicting versions about the source of title of suit properties. 5.1 Secondly, the learned Judge noticed that the plaintiffs have not stated when and on which date, the names of the plaintiffs have been deleted. The pleadings were bereft of the details as to by which mutation entry, the names of the plaintiffs were deleted. In such circumstances, the learned Judge had proceeded to further examine the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs. Whereby the learned Judge found that the plaintiffs have not adduced any revenue record, which prima facie, reflects the names of the plaintiffs or even name of their late father, which the plaintiffs claim to have been deleted from the revenue record of the suit properties. 5.2 Lastly, the learned Judge has considered the arguments led by the parties on the issue of limitation. From the pleadings of the plaint the court noticed that in fact, the late father of the plaintiffs i.e. Ibrahimbhai expired way back in the year-1971 and during his lifetime, he had never objected to the revenue entries. In this background of the facts and upon appreciation of the plaint and the documentary evidence led by the plaintiff, the learned Judge had carefully scrutinized the dates of the sale-deeds and the revenue records as relied upon by the learned advocate for the defendants, during the course of his arguments. In this background of the facts and upon appreciation of the plaint and the documentary evidence led by the plaintiff, the learned Judge had carefully scrutinized the dates of the sale-deeds and the revenue records as relied upon by the learned advocate for the defendants, during the course of his arguments. The learned Judge took note of the fact that the aforesaid transactions referred by the defendants in respect of suit properties, were made during the period of year-1940 to 1950. The only explanation, which was offered by the plaintiffs to meet with such arguments of learned advocate for the defendant, was that they became aware about the aforesaid transactions recently i.e. two months prior to filing of the suit. 5.3 The learned Judge for the reasons assigned concluded that the transactions were made almost 50 years before the date of filing of the suit, and therefore, the suit was barred by limitation. 5.4 In the process of appreciating the arguments advanced by the respective parties, the learned Judge arrived at a conclusion that the suit properties were purchased by Pirubhai Kalubhai, son of Kalubhai and Karamjibai (Karimabai) wife of Pirubhai Kalubhai from their money and they were the sole owners of the suit properties, the defendants being their legal heirs have derived their rights in the suit properties. 5.5 On the other hand, the plaintiffs’ case was not believed by the learned Judge. It appears from the record that the plaintiffs have belatedly produced on record the list of the documents marked 72/1 to 72/9 to establish their legal right and joint ownership in the suit properties. Taking note of the aforesaid documents, it was difficult for the learned Judge to relate the aforesaid documents with the suit properties in absence of any specifications regarding the suit properties in such documents. The learned Judge arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove their cause of action to file such a suit. Thus, ultimately the learned Judge concluded that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit and accordingly, passed the impugned order under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code, rejecting the plaint. Hence, this appeal at the instance of the original plaintiffs. 6. Learned advocate Mr. A.B. Gateshaniya had appeared for the appellants, learned advocate Mr. K.V. Shelat had appeared for the respondents nos. 2 and 5.4 and learned advocate Mr. Hence, this appeal at the instance of the original plaintiffs. 6. Learned advocate Mr. A.B. Gateshaniya had appeared for the appellants, learned advocate Mr. K.V. Shelat had appeared for the respondents nos. 2 and 5.4 and learned advocate Mr. Aditya J. Pandya has appeared for the respondent No.5.6. Except for respondent nos. 3,6.7 and 6.8, rest of the respondents were represented by learned advocate Mr. P.A. Mehd. Learned advocates appearing for the respective parties were heard at length and the matter was reserved for judgment. 7. The record of the present appeal indicates that notice was issued by this Court upon the defendants vide order dated 21.11.2013. The heirs of the deceased appellant no.2/4 were subsequently brought on record. This Court, vide order dated 24.01.2014, was pleased to admit the appeal and the matter was notified for final hearing. 8. Learned advocate Mr. A.B. Gateshaniya appearing for the appellants, at the outset, had invited our attention to the aforesaid reasons assigned by the learned Judge, while passing the impugned order under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. According to the learned advocate for the appellants, the learned Judge committed serious error in applying the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code, in the facts of the case. According to him, on bare reading of the pleadings made in the plaint, no scope had arisen for the learned Judge to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code. According to the learned advocate, it was a precise case of the plaintiff that the public notice was issued on 08.01.2012 by the defendants in the newspaper seeking title clearance certificate through their advocate. The aforesaid notice was strongly objected by the plaintiffs by tendering reply, which was not dealt with properly by the defendants. It was further submitted that deceased Fatimaben and deceased Karamjibai (Karimabai) were real sisters, who had married to two real brothers namely Ibrahimbhai Kalubhai and Pirubhai Kalubhai respectively. Some of the properties were, in fact, mutated in the name of Karamjibai Madhubhai. However, the properties which were mutated in the name of Karamjibai as the sole owner was a question of fact, which was required to be established by the defendants at the stage of evidence. Some of the properties were, in fact, mutated in the name of Karamjibai Madhubhai. However, the properties which were mutated in the name of Karamjibai as the sole owner was a question of fact, which was required to be established by the defendants at the stage of evidence. 8.1 The learned Judge, without appreciating the aforesaid fact, had in fact, relied upon the aforesaid transactions, which facts were derived from the application filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code. According to the learned advocate for the appellants, the learned Judge therefore committed serious error by relying upon the aforesaid facts narrated in the said application to arrive at a conclusion that the sale transactions related to year 1940 to 1950, which was purchased by late Karamjibai and Pirubhai Kalubhai, otherwise not objected by the father and grandfather of the plaintiffs, during their lifetime. Therefore, not believing the case of the plaintiff that the suit properties were undivided, ancestral properties and the plaintiffs were the co-owners of the suit properties. The learned advocate for the appellants had further submitted that the learned Judge miserably failed to appreciate the cause of action as pleaded by the plaintiff in its true perspective. Our attention was invited to the prayers sought for in the plaint. It was submitted that prayer for declaration of the ownership right in the suit properties and partition of such properties, can be sought for at any stage as it is a continuous cause of action. After the issuance of public notice, the dispute had arisen between the parties, which had led the plaintiff to approach the court to avail legal remedy. 8.2 By making the aforesaid submissions, he therefore, urged this Court to quash and set aside the impugned order and to restore the suit and to direct the trial court to decide the suit in accordance with law by permitting the parties to lead their evidence. 9. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. K.V. Shelat appearing for the respective respondents, at the outset, had tendered the copy of pedhinama in order to appreciate the lineal descendant of the family viz. parties to the litigation. While referring to the pleadings of the plaint, learned advocate had submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the suit properties were purchased in the name of grand father Kalubhai. parties to the litigation. While referring to the pleadings of the plaint, learned advocate had submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the suit properties were purchased in the name of grand father Kalubhai. Our attention was invited to the documents produced by the plaintiffs at mark 72/1 to 72/9 to contend that no error can be found with the findings of the learned Judge of any specification of names of the plaintiffs or their grandfather to relate their legal right over the suit properties. The learned advocate had further referred to the prayers made in the suit. It was submitted that though essentially the declaration was sought for, the joint ownership right in the suit properties and partition, there was no challenge made to the sale deeds, which has otherwise transpired on government record in the form of mutation entries right from year 1940 to 1961. 9.1 According to learned advocate Mr. K.V. Shelat, these being public documents, was well within the knowledge of the plaintiff’s grandfather as well as father, who during their lifetime have never approached any court. According to him, the right to sue accrued immediately upon the registration of sale deeds in respect of the suit properties, which was never exercised at the first instance by the affected party mainly by the predecessors of the plaintiffs. At this stage, the learned advocate had referred to Sections 52, 56 and 57 of the Chapter VI of the Mohammedan Law, more particularly, Mulla Commentaries, on the rule of inheritance. It was submitted that the right of the heirs come into existence only on death of the descendant and rule of inheritance in Mahomedan law, does not recognise birth right and has therefore, questioned, the locus of the plaintiffs to seek such relief. It was further submitted that the plaintiffs have cleverly drafted the plaint by suppressing relevant facts of execution of sale deeds exclusively in the ownership of their mother/grandmother-Karimabai, in order to save their suit from the period of limitation. It was further submitted that the plaintiffs have cleverly drafted the plaint by suppressing relevant facts of execution of sale deeds exclusively in the ownership of their mother/grandmother-Karimabai, in order to save their suit from the period of limitation. Inviting our attention to the cause of action as pleaded by the plaintiffs in the plaint, the learned advocate had submitted that what would matter would be, the bundle of facts, which the plaintiffs need to plead as well as to prove so as to show that they have a right to sue and if the plaintiff is unable to establish such facts, which entitles the defendants to get a judgment in their favour, the Court was to act as per mandate of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. It was further submitted that even otherwise the plaintiffs were under obligation to disclose all the material facts in the suit, failing which, the plaint deserves to be rejected. He had further submitted that for claiming the right over the suit properties, the plaintiffs were expected to make specific pleadings explaining their source of title in the suit properties. What was pleaded before the trial court, was that Kalubhai had acquired the suit property, however, it did not clarify as to in what manner, the said Kalubhai Pirubhai had acquired his right in the suit properties. It was further submitted that in order to maintain the suit, it was for the plaintiffs to establish that the suit was not barred by law or limitation. It is apparent from the plain reading of the plaint that nowhere, the plaintiffs have stated to have derived the right as joint owners of the property with the defendants. In fact, they have failed to specify their right to sue against the suit properties, which is otherwise the foundation for the cause of action as projected by them in the plaint. 9.2 According to learned advocate, in absence of these vital facts not disclosed by the plaintiff, the learned Civil Judge was right within its jurisdiction to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code for not disclosing the cause of action. 9.3 Lastly, learned advocate had referred to para 8 of the plaint, to contend that the plaintiffs in fact, admitted that the cause of action for the plaintiff had arisen in the year 1946, when Kalubhai Pirubhai had passed away. 9.3 Lastly, learned advocate had referred to para 8 of the plaint, to contend that the plaintiffs in fact, admitted that the cause of action for the plaintiff had arisen in the year 1946, when Kalubhai Pirubhai had passed away. He therefore submitted that hopelessly, the suit is time barred and is also barred by law of limitation, and therefore, the suit was otherwise not maintainable and under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code was required to be rejected. 9.4 The reference was also made to the method of valuation of the suit adopted by the plaintiffs, which can be considered as another factor not to entertain the suit. It was, therefore, submitted that no error can be found with the approach of the learned Judge in dismissing the suit at the threshold by exercising the powers under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code. 10. Learned advocate Mr. K.V. Shelat had placed reliance upon following authorities: (I) In the case of Mohammad Khalil Khan and others vs. Mahbub Ali Mian and other reported in AIR 1949 Privy Council 78, to contend though phrase “cause of action” has not been defined in any Act, however, the phrase on various occasion, as examined by the Courts, includes every fact, which would be necessary to prove in order to enable the plaintiff to sustain his action. Of course, “cause of action” has no relation whatsoever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant, nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff.. (II) In the case of A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem reported in AIR 1989 Supreme Court 1239, the Hon’ble Court has re-affirmed the aforesaid interpretation of the phrase cause of action. (III) In the case of Canara Bank vs. P. Selathal and Ors. reported in AIR OnLine 2020 SC 262, relied upon relevant observations, more particularly, para Nos.7.2 to 7.8. 11. By making the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate had urged not to entertain the present appeal and to uphold the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge, rejecting the suit. 12. Learned advocate Mr. P.A. Mehd, appearing for the respective respondents, had adopted the submissions made by learned advocate Mr. K.V. Shelat who appeared for the respective respondents. 13. 11. By making the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate had urged not to entertain the present appeal and to uphold the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge, rejecting the suit. 12. Learned advocate Mr. P.A. Mehd, appearing for the respective respondents, had adopted the submissions made by learned advocate Mr. K.V. Shelat who appeared for the respective respondents. 13. Having heard learned counsels appearing for respective parties and having perused the impugned Judgment and order of dismissal of suit, the only question which arises for consideration in present appeal is as to whether the learned Trial Court committed any error in dismissing the suit at threshold by rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code , without conducting trial in the facts of the case? 14. The principal argument raised by the appellant in the present appeal is that the learned Judge has acted beyond jurisdiction as the court has taken into consideration the case of the defendants and the evidence produced by them. As noticed in the earlier part of the order, undoubtedly the reference is made to the transactions as relied upon by the defendants in their application as well as the registered sale deeds produced by them in respect of suit lands. However, it is not the only factor which has weighed with the learned Judge. As noticed earlier, the learned Judge has examined the pleadings of the plaint independent of the aforesaid documents and has arrived at finding that no cause of action has arisen for filing suit. In our opinion, the core issue which is required to be therefore examined is whether a real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated with a view to get out of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. 15. Before examining the issue involved, it would be appropriate to look into the relevant provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code reads thus: 11. 15. Before examining the issue involved, it would be appropriate to look into the relevant provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code reads thus: 11. Rejection of plaint.— The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:— (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; 1 [(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;] 2 [(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9:] 3 [Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp- paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.] Thus, from plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it mandates the court to reject the plaint, if any of the grounds provided under order VII Rule 11 of the Code is attracted. It states that the plaint “shall” be rejected if any of the grounds specified in clauses (a) to (e) are made out. If the court finds that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, or that the suit is barred by any law, the court has no option, but to reject the plaint. Thus, Clause (a) empowers the Court to reject the plaint where the plaint does not disclose a cause of action. The Courts are to examine the question as to whether the real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or purely illusionary cause has been set out to get out of Order VII Rule 11. 16. Thus, Clause (a) empowers the Court to reject the plaint where the plaint does not disclose a cause of action. The Courts are to examine the question as to whether the real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or purely illusionary cause has been set out to get out of Order VII Rule 11. 16. Appropriate would be to look into the relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dahiben vs. Arvinbhai Kalyanji Bhanushali (Gajra) dead through legal representatives and ors., (2020) 7 SCC 366 while dealing with an appeal against an order of rejection of suit at threshold had occasion to consider various precedents, discussing the intent and purpose of Order VII Rule 11 of Code, while setting out principles in relation to the same. The Judgment also succinctly deals with the approach to be adopted by the Courts while examining an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code. The Court observed that the power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order VII Rule 11 are required to be strictly adhered to. Under Order VII Rule 11, a duty is cast on the court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law. Having regard to Order VII Rule 14 CPC, the Court observed that the documents filed alongwith the plaint, can be taken into consideration for deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11(a). When a document referred to in the plaint, forms the basis of the plaint, it should be treated as a part of the plaint. In exercise of power under the provision, the court would determine if the assertions made in the plaint are contrary to statutory law, or judicial dicta, for deciding whether a case of rejecting the plaint at the threshold is made out. At this stage, the plea taken by the defendant in the written statement and application for rejection of the plaint on the merits, would be irrelevant, and cannot be adverted to, or taken into consideration. 17. At this stage, the plea taken by the defendant in the written statement and application for rejection of the plaint on the merits, would be irrelevant, and cannot be adverted to, or taken into consideration. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the test for exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 for the courts is that if the averments made in the plaint are taken into entirety, in conjunction with the documents relied upon, would the same, result in a decree of the relief which is sought for. The test is as to whether if the averments made in the plaint are taken to be correct in their entirety, a decree would be passed. In Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. Vs. Hede and Co., (2007) 5 SCC 614 the Court further held that 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 stands, without addition or subtraction of words. If the allegations in the plaint prima facie show a cause of action, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations are true in fact. If, however, on meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit does not disclose right to sue, cause of action or suit is barred by any law then the court has no option but to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The Court thus held that the provision of Order VII Rule 11 is mandatory in nature. 18. Applying the aforesaid legal principles in the facts of the case, as regards the principal ground raised by the learned advocate for the appellant, we do find merits in the submission that the learned Judge ought not to have traveled beyond pleadings in the plaint and take notice of the registered sale deeds referred in application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. Having held so our exercise does not end, as there are other aspects of the matter which we as an appellate court have been called upon to determine. 19. We have independently examined the controversy and carefully considered the pleadings of the plaint as available on record. Having held so our exercise does not end, as there are other aspects of the matter which we as an appellate court have been called upon to determine. 19. We have independently examined the controversy and carefully considered the pleadings of the plaint as available on record. The close reading of the pleadings as averred in paragraph no.1 of the plaint mentions that Kalubhai Pirubhai was holding various agricultural lands, however it does not further clarify as regards the source of title of Kalubhai Pirubhai. Indisputably, the suit is filed for declaration of joint ownership rights, partition and permanent injunction in respect of suit properties against the defendants. The plaintiff's case is based on the fact that he has derived ownership rights in the suit lands by inheritance, the fact of source of title of Kalubhai Pirubhai was the relevant material fact to be disclosed by the Plaintiffs. The further reading of the pleadings of para 2, 3 and 4 mentions about the family tree of the plaintiffs and defendants and the later portion claims that the suit lands are jointly owned and possessed by the plaintiffs and the defendants. In our opinion, the pleadings are not clear and lack essential details as to when and in what manner the right accrued by virtue of inheritance and acknowledged the plaintiffs and the defendants as the joint owners and in joint possession of suit properties. Though it is pleaded that the suit properties are of ownership of the late grandfather of the parties viz. Kalubhai Pirubhai, however, no documentary evidence produced on record at Exh.3 as well as Exh.72 which supports the aforesaid fact as pleaded in the plaint. 20. On an overall appreciation of the pleadings in conjunction with the documents produced on record, more particularly, the revenue record viz. the village form 7/12, village form no.6, produced by the plaintiff does not suggest the names of the ancestors of the plaintiff viz. Kalubhai Pirubhai as lawful owner of the suits lands whereas on other hand the name of Pirubhai and his wife Karimabai is reflected in revenue record right from inception, which nullifies the case of the plaintiff that their names were deleted in collusion with the revenue officers giving them cause of action to approach the civil court for declaration of any rights and partition. In our opinion, such irresponsible averment about their names being deleted in collusion with revenue officers, made by the plaintiff without any specific material facts is nothing but an illusory cause of action projected by the plaintiff. 21. It is also an acceptable legal position that documents produced along with plaint are to be treated as part of the plaint and can always be looked into to inquire in proceedings under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. Appropriate would be to look into provisions of Order VII Rule 14 of the Code, which directs the plaintiff to present his documents alongwith the plaint. However, in the eventuality of the non- production of the documents at the stage of presentation of the plaint, the only consequence provided under law is that the same shall not be taken in evidence at the later stage of the trial without the leave of the court but cannot be the sole criteria to reject the plaint. In fact, the learned Judge has taken cognizance of non- production of the documents as regards ownership of deceased grandfather Kalubhai Pirubhai, which gains significance looking at the controversy involved. In our view, no error can be found with the approach of the learned Judge who has further looked into the evidence of the plaintiff produced at Exh. 3 and Exh. 72 as marked documents produced at marked 72/1 to 72/17, to inquire into the prima facie case of the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint. The close examination of such documents produced on record by the plaintiff is bereft of any details which can relate to the case put forward by the plaintiff. 22. The fundamental requirement to maintain a suit for declaration of ownership rights derived in ancestral property and claim for partition, at least requires precise facts as to identity of the suit property as ancestor property, manner in which inheritance right accrued, right to sue first accrued vis-a-vis infringement of such rights. As recorded earlier, the pleadings in the plaint are bereft of these basic precise facts to sustain a prima facie case of the plaintiffs. On bare appreciation of the prayer clause of the plaint in light of the cause of action alleged, indisputably, the plaintiffs have approached with a prayer for declaration of their share in suit properties followed by prayer for partition and protection of their alleged possession. On bare appreciation of the prayer clause of the plaint in light of the cause of action alleged, indisputably, the plaintiffs have approached with a prayer for declaration of their share in suit properties followed by prayer for partition and protection of their alleged possession. However, the source of claiming ownership rights can be sustained unless there is specific assertion of the ownership right of Kalubhai Pirubhai as thereafter the suit properties can be treated as ancestral properties. In fact it has transpired on record that the plaintiffs are the fourth line of generation of deceased Kalubhai Pirubhai, who has expired as pleaded in the plaint in the Year 1946 followed by the death of his Son Sheikh Ibrahimbhai, who was the grandfather of the plaintiffs, on 10.10.1971 and thereafter the death of Mohmadbhai who was the father of the plaintiff in the year 1980. The first cause of action arose for claiming the right of inheritance to deceased Sheikh Ibrahimbhai way back in the year 1946. The ancestors of the plaintiffs viz. the grandfather or father of the plaintiffs have chosen not to seek the right of inheritance. The pleadings of the plaintiff are not found in conjunction with the documents placed on record along with the plaint. The village form 7-12 of suit properties of year 1940-1950 doesn’t mention the name of Kalubhai Pirubhai as owner or occupier of such land. This definitely raises the question as to what prevented the grandfather or even the father of the plaintiffs to sue for their ownership rights during their lifetime over the suit properties. In our opinion these bundles of facts are material facts necessary to be proved by the plaintiffs in order to entitled them to the reliefs claimed in the suit. 23. At this juncture, looking at the sections 52, 56 and 57 of Chapter VI of the Mohammedan law which precisely provides for right of inheritance, one can gather that the notion of Joint family property or coparcenary property is not recognised under Mohammedan law as provided under Hindu law. When a Muslim passes away, his or her assets pass to their heirs in a set share, with their deriving sole ownership. Similarly, when such a legal heir expires, the property possessed stands distributed to his legal heirs. In other words, there is no distinction between self acquired property or inherited property. When a Muslim passes away, his or her assets pass to their heirs in a set share, with their deriving sole ownership. Similarly, when such a legal heir expires, the property possessed stands distributed to his legal heirs. In other words, there is no distinction between self acquired property or inherited property. It is equally important to note that the right of inheritance accrues only upon death. There is no concept of succession to the estate of a living individual . Thus, the provision gives the legal right to inherit property only at the demise of the descendant and not with the birth of a child. 24. In view of the aforesaid provisions, indisputably no right of ownership stood recognised in favour of the great grandfather of the plaintiffs, which entitles the plaintiffs to bring suit for seeking right of ownership on the basis of inheritance. In absence of these missing links in the chain, on meaningful reading of the plaint, we find that the suit does not disclose the right to sue and nor any cause of action has arisen for the plaintiffs to maintain such a suit. 25. We could not overlook what has rightly been noticed by the learned Judge that the plaintiffs have averred two different versions about source of title of the suit properties, which strikes at the prima facie case of the plaintiffs to be believed. In such circumstances, the Supreme Court has cautioned the courts to be more vigilant against any camouflage or suppression, and determine whether the litigation is utterly vexatious, and abuse of the process of the court. (Swamy Atmananda vs. Sri Ramakrishna Taporvanam (2005) 10 SCC 51 , Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy vs. Syed Jalai (2017) 13 SCC 174 ). It is a settled legal position as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T. Arivandandam Vs. T. V. Satyapal, reported in (1977) 4 SCC 467 , which has been followed and reiterated in the subsequent decisions that clever drafting creating illusions of cause of action are not permitted in law and a clear right to sue should be shown in the plaint, failing which the suit is required to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. 26. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeal is devoid of any merits and is hereby dismissed. The order passed by learned Judge below application Exh. 26. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeal is devoid of any merits and is hereby dismissed. The order passed by learned Judge below application Exh. 26 filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code is accordingly confirmed and consequently the suit stands rejected. There shall be no order as to cost. 27. Let record and proceedings be sent back forthwith to the concerned court.