ORDER : N. Sathish Kumar, J. This Appeal Suit has been filed against the judgement and decree in I.A.No.1083 of 2018 in O.S.No.9 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Tiruppur, dated 05.01.2022. 2.Aggrieved over the order of the Court below, in rejecting the plaint, the present Appeal has been filed. 3.The facts, which are necessary for disposal of the Appeal, are stated as under: The appellant herein is the plaintiff. She moved a suit in O.S.No.9 of 2018 before the II Addl. 2.Aggrieved over the order of the Court below, in rejecting the plaint, the present Appeal has been filed. 3.The facts, which are necessary for disposal of the Appeal, are stated as under: The appellant herein is the plaintiff. She moved a suit in O.S.No.9 of 2018 before the II Addl. District Judge, Tiruppur, for the following reliefs, viz., “A) To divide the suit properties described hereunder into three equal shares and to allot of one such share to the plaintiff with respect to good and bad soil by metes and bounds by appointing a commissioner; B) To declared that the alleged settlement deed Document No (3995/1987 dated 30.11.1987) executed by the 1 st defendant to in favour of the 2nd defendant is null and void and it will not binding again the plaintiff; C) To declared that the alleged settlement deed Document No. 51/1988 dated 11.01.1988 executed by 1 st defendant to in favour of 2 defendant is null and void and it will not binding against the plaintiff; D) To declared that the settlement deed Document No. 1930/1998 dated 18.12.1998 executed by 1st defendant to in favour of 2nd defendant is null and void and it will not binding against the plaintiff; E) To declared that the settlement deed Document No.3443/2008 dated 11.08.2008 executed by 1st defendant to in favour of the plaintiff is null and void and it will not binding against the plaintiff; F) To declared that the settlement deed Document No. 3636/2008 dated 21.08.2008 executed by 2 nd defendant to in favour of the plaintiff is null and void and it will not binding against the plaintiff; G) To declared that the settlement deed Document No. 321/2008 dated 28.01.2008 executed by 1st defendant to in favour of the 3 rd defendant is null and void and it will not be binding against the plaintiff; H) To declared that the settlement deed Document No.3433/2011 dated 29.09.2011 executed by 3rd defendant to in favour of the 2nd defendant is null and void and it will not binding against the plaintiff; I) To declared that the Rectification deed Document No. 3625/2016 dated 18.07.2016 executed by 3 rd defendant to in favour of the 2nd defendant is null and void and it will not binding against the plaintiff; J) To declared that the settlement deed Document No. 320/2008 dated 28.01.2008 executed by 1st defendant to in favour of the plaintiff is null and void and it will not binding against the plaintiff; K) To declared that the settlement deed Document No. 3434/2011 dated 29/09/2011 executed by plaintiff to in favour of the 2nd defendant is null and void and it will not binding against the plaintiff; L) To declared that the settlement deed Document No. 1146/1985 dated 14.06.1985 executed by 1st defendant to in favour of the 2nd defendant is null and void and it will not binding against the plaintiff. M) To declared that the settlement deed Document No. 2552/1985 dated 14.11.1985, executed by 1st defendant to in favour of the 2nd defendant is null and void and it will not binding against the plaintiff; N) To declared that the settlement deed Document No. 2553/1985 dated 14.11.1985 executed by 1st defendant to in favour of the 2nd defendant is null and void and it will not binding against the plaintiff. O) To declared that the settlement deed Document No. 2443/1987 dated 31.07.1987 executed by 1st defendant to in favour of the 2 nd defendant is null and void and it will not binding against the plaintiff. P) To declared that the settlement deed Document No. 2217/2013 dated 28.06.2013 executed by 2nd defendant to in favour of the 3rd defendant is null and void and it will not binding against the plaintiff; Q) To declared that the settlement deed Document No. 2666/1987 dated 21.08.1987 executed by 1st defendant to in favour of the 2nd defendant is null and void and it will not binding against the plaintiff. R) Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants, their agent, their servant, their relatives from in any manner alienate or encumber the suit properties; S) Permanent Injunction restraining the 4th defendant, their agent, there servant, their relatives from in any manner accept the redemption made by the defendants 1 & 2 and disburse the mutual fund amount to the defendants 1 & 2. T) Awarding the cost of the suit to this plaintiff” 4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the first item of the property and the other properties are the ancestral property of one, Muthusamy Gounder. He has three sons, namely, Palanisamy Gounder and two others. The said Palanisamy Gounder and his two brothers divided the 1 st item of the suit property and other properties through a Court decree in O.S.No.395 of 1965 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. The 1 st item of the suit property and other properties were allotted to the above said Palanisamy Gounder in a family partition. Thereafter, the said Palanisamy Gounder, and his son, namely the first defendant and his daughters had entered into a partition. By virtue of the said Partition Deed dated 29.03.1976, the 1 st item of the suit property was allotted to the said Palanisamy Gounder. Thereafter, the said Palanisamy Gounder, and his son, namely the first defendant and his daughters had entered into a partition. By virtue of the said Partition Deed dated 29.03.1976, the 1 st item of the suit property was allotted to the said Palanisamy Gounder. Thereafter, he had executed a registered Will dated 31.07.1978 in favour of his wife Parvathammal. Subsequently, the said Parvathammal executed two settlement deeds dated 24.03.2004 in favour of her son namely, the first defendant. According to the plaintiff, though the settlement deeds were executed in favour of the first defendant, the plaintiff has 1/3 rd share in the 1 st item of the suit property. It is the further case that item nos.2 to 6 were also purchased out of the income derived from the ancestral property. Hence, the plaint proceeds that any settlement in respect of the ancestral property is not valid and the plaintiff has share in the suit properties. 5. It is relevant to note that in a suit in O.S.No.9 of 2018, an interim order was granted in favour of the plaintiff in IA.Nos.33 & 34 of 2018 on 28.04.2018 and the same has been challenged before this Court in CMA Nos.2341 & 2342 of 2018. This Court disposed of the said Appeals with a direction to the trial Court, to dispose of the Appeal as early as possible within a period of one year. This order came to be passed on 04.02.2021 by this Court. 6. While so, the first defendant moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC in I.A.No.1083 of 2018 by the defendants, seeking to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation and the claim and declaration sought for by the plaintiff are barred by law. According to the defendants, the first item of the property was allotted to the first defendant in the partition that took place between Palanisamy Gounder, 1 st defendant and his daughters on 29.03.1976 and from then onwards, it became his separate property. Accordingly, the plaintiff's grandfather has bequeathed the properties in favour of his wife vide a registered Will dated 31.07.1978. After the death of her husband, she has executed a settlement deed dated 29.04.1955 in favour of the first defendant. Similarly, the property purchased in the year 1955 is also the subject matter of the settlement in the year 1970-71. Accordingly, the plaintiff's grandfather has bequeathed the properties in favour of his wife vide a registered Will dated 31.07.1978. After the death of her husband, she has executed a settlement deed dated 29.04.1955 in favour of the first defendant. Similarly, the property purchased in the year 1955 is also the subject matter of the settlement in the year 1970-71. Those documents cannot be questioned at this stage. Similarly, it is the contention that all other properties are settled in favour of the first defendant, except item no.6, in respect of which, there were proceedings in O.S.No.102 of 2017 and the plaintiff is also the party to the decree. Therefore, according to the first defendant, the suit is also an abuse of process of law and sought for rejection of the plaint. This application has been opposed by the appellant/plaintiff. 7. The learned trial Judge has allowed the application on the ground that since the first item of the property was allotted to the father of the first defendant and thereby, it became his self-acquired property. Thereafter, he bequeathed the property in favour of his wife on 31.07.1978 by executing a registered Will. Thereafter, the property has been settled. Hence, the trial Court has held that all the suit properties are the exclusive properties of the defendants and rejected the plaint. Challenging the same, the present Appeal came to be filed before this Court. 8. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior counsel would mainly submit that the averments contained in the plaint alone to be seen while entertaining the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the trial Court must primarily examine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action and whether it is barred by any law. He pointed out that it is the specific case of the plaintiff that the suit properties are the ancestral properties and to decide the character of the properties, evidence is absolutely necessary. Without going into the documents, the trial Court simply carried away by the submissions made by the counsels and rejected the plaint and such course is not permissible under law. Without going into the documents, the trial Court simply carried away by the submissions made by the counsels and rejected the plaint and such course is not permissible under law. It is also pointed out by the learned Senior counsel that the plaint documents particularly, the sale deeds dated 22.01.2008, where the plaintiff is also one of the party along with his father and others, which would clearly show that the suit properties are the family properties and were in joint possession of all of them and even the sale deed dated 16.03.2017 to which, the plaintiff was also one of the parties wherein, it is averred that this property is the family property. Similarly, the sale deed dated 08.06.2017, which is one of the plaint documents, wherein, similar fact is averred. Even the document executed by the first defendant, i.e. the sale deed dated 16.11.1999, the first defendant himself has stated that the property is the ancestral property. While so, without going into these facts, the trial Court has rejected the entire plaint, which cannot be sustained and hence, the learned counsel prays this Court to set aside the order passed by the trial Court. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents, would mainly submit that the suit has been filed with an illusionary cause of action. According to him, item nos.2 & 3 were purchased even prior to the partition of the ancestral property. Further, the first item, after division became separate and exclusive property of the first defendant and the 3 rd item was also purchased prior to the partition of the ancestral properties, viz., item nos.3, 4, 5 & 6. Therefore, once the divided property was bequeathed by Palanisamy Gounder in favour of his wife, thereafter, the properties were subjected to various settlements and thereafter the said properties were never construed as the ancestral property. Hence, according to him, the suit is nothing but a gross abuse of process of law. Hence, he opposed the Appeal. 10. In the light of the above submissions, now the point that arises for consideration in this Appeal, is that whether there is cause of action to maintain the suit? 11. Hence, according to him, the suit is nothing but a gross abuse of process of law. Hence, he opposed the Appeal. 10. In the light of the above submissions, now the point that arises for consideration in this Appeal, is that whether there is cause of action to maintain the suit? 11. In order to consider application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to look into the averments in the plaint and the same can be exercised by the trial Court at any stage of the suit. The averments contained in the written statement are immaterial and it is the duty of the Court to scrutinize the averments/pleas in the plaint. In other words, what needs to be looked into in deciding the application are the averments in the plaint and at this stage, the pleas taken by the defendant are wholly irrelevant and the matter is to be decided only on the plaint averments. Therefore, it is well settled that the plaint cannot be rejected merely on the basis of the pleas taken by the defendant in his written statement. The Court ought to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinising the averments in the plaint, read in conjunction with the documents relied upon. Cause of action is a bundle of material facts, which has to be gathered based on the averments made in the plaint in its entirety. Once the plaint discloses a cause of action, it requires determination and it is the bounden duty of the trial Court to proceed with the suit and hear the matter on its merits, 12.Though some legal submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent may be attractive at first instance, the fact remains that the very character of the property was questioned in the suit by the plaintiff as the specific case of the plaintiff is that the suit properties are the ancestral properties. Though it is admitted by the plaintiff that the first item after division is in favour of his father were bequeathed in favour of her mother, thereafter, a settlement deed was executed by the first respondent. The fact remains that the plaintiff claims that she has a share in the property since it is ancestral property and is in possession of joint family. The fact remains that the plaintiff claims that she has a share in the property since it is ancestral property and is in possession of joint family. Further stand of the plaintiff is that all other properties are ancestral properties purchased out of the ancestral nucleus. The plaint documents, particularly, the documents referred to by the learned Senior counsel for the appellant dated 22.01.2008 and 16.09.1989 and other document nos.31, 37, 38 & 39 were carefully perused. It appears that several transactions took place between the parties including the first defendant, the plaintiff and the others wherein, it is clearly averred that the properties are the joint family properties. Further, in the sale deed dated 16.09.1999, it is specifically averred by the first defendant that properties are the ancestral property. In the said sale deed, the plaintiff is also made as an eo-nominee party. Therefore, when the Kartha of the family himself has admitted that the properties are the ancestral properties and there was joint family nucleus, the trial Court ought not have gone to the extent of rejecting the plaint, merely on the basis of the pleas made by the defendant. Even assuming that the legal submissions made by the defendant in respect of certain items of the property is valid, even then, the entire plaint cannot be rejected, since plaint cannot be rejected in part. Even after the property was bequeathed in favour of the plaintiff's mother, whether the property still retained the character of joint family or not has to be decided only on the basis of the evidence. The conduct of the parties also to be assessed based on the evidence when the very sale deeds filed along with the plaint, wherein, the Kartha admitted the character of the property, the rejection of the plaint at this stage is not permissible at all. Though, the learned counsel for the respondent made an attempt to convince the Court that such recitals in those documents are only by inadvertent mistake by document writers and the same will not have any effect in deciding the character of the property, this Court is afraid of such submissions and it has to be decided only based on the evidence let in by the parties. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the Appeal is allowed and the order rejecting the plaint by the Court below is set aside. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the Appeal is allowed and the order rejecting the plaint by the Court below is set aside. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the suit and dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.