ORDER : V.SRISHANANDA, J. Heard Sri.Nandish Gowda G. B., learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri.Sampath Kumar P., learned counsel for respondent Nos.1(b) to (f) and Smt.Sangeetha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.V.Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. Defendant Nos.1 to 5 in O.S.No.1178/2012 are the revision petitioners challenging the validity of the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short) in the said suit. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 3.1. A suit came to be filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff in O.S.No.1178/2012 with the following prayer in respect of following immovable properties: “Wherefore it is very respectfully pray that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass judgment and decree against the defendants for: a. For partition and separate possession of the plaintiff 1/5 th legitimate share in the suit schedule properties by meets and bounds. b. Declare and decree that the alleged will dated 01.06.1987 and partition deed dated 08.05.2006 and mutation and revenue entries said to have been obtained by the defendants No.1 to 3 not binding on the plaintiffs legitimate share in the entire suit schedule properties. c. Enquiry for mesne profit U/o 20 Rule 12 CPC. d. Draw preliminary decree as allowed under law. e. Award court cost and such other relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. SCHEDULE PROPERTIES Properties situated at Yallapura village, Kasaba Hobli, Arkere post, Tumkur Taluk. 1. Sy.No.6/2, phoded as 6/8, 0-28 guntas 6/9 measuring 0-28 guntas together measuring 1-16 guntas assessed at Rs 1-93 ps. Bounded by: East: Garden land of Muddaiah, Bheemaiah West: Land of Chikkamallaiah North: Land of Puttalingaiah South: Land of Kodimallaiah 2. Sy.No.11/3 measuring 0-10 guntas, assessed at Rs. 1.20 paisa, bounded by: East: Puttasiddappa West: Land of Kodimallaiah North: Land of Kodimallaiah South: Land of Narasappa 3. Sy.No.14/2 measuring 0-18 guntas, assessed at Rs.1.62 paisa, bounded by: East: Land of Kodimallaiah West: Halla North: Land of Chikkaramaiah South: Land of Kempamallaiah 4. Sy.No.13/4 measuring 0-17 guntas, assessed at Rs.1.41 paisa, bounded by: East: Land of Puttalingaiaha West: Land of Puttalingaiah North: Land of Kodimallaiah South: Land of Erabyraiah and Hucchaiah 5. Sy.No.14/2 measuring 0-18 guntas, assessed at Rs.1.62 paisa, bounded by: East: Land of Kodimallaiah West: Halla North: Land of Chikkaramaiah South: Land of Kempamallaiah 4. Sy.No.13/4 measuring 0-17 guntas, assessed at Rs.1.41 paisa, bounded by: East: Land of Puttalingaiaha West: Land of Puttalingaiah North: Land of Kodimallaiah South: Land of Erabyraiah and Hucchaiah 5. Sy.No.6/6 measuring 0-03 guntas, assessed at bounded by: East: Land of Kodimallaiah West: Land of Erabyraiah North: Land of Erabyraiah South: Land of Kodimallaiah 6. Sy.No.94/2 measuring 2-29 guntas, Sy.No.94/3, measuring 3-21 guntas, Sy.No.94/4 measuring 0-09 guntas together 6-19 guntas including kharab, assessed at Rs.6.18 paisa, situated at Arkere village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumkur Taluk, bounded by: East: Land of Lakshmaiah West: Tumkuru – Madhugri Road North: Property of Jayalakshmi Industries South: Land of Halla Kodilingaiah 7. Malige and red tiled roofed residential house bearing No.25, assessment No.26, 55, 57/63 property No.32, 56, 57 measuring 28 feet x 12 feet and 16 feet x 18 feet, situated at Yallapura village, Swandenahalli Panchayathi, Tumakuru Taluk, having common boundaries by: East: Kodirnallaiah’s Roppa West: House of Chikkaramegowda North: Land of Chikkaramegowda South: Road 3.2. In the plaint, it is contented by plaintiff that Kodilingaiah, son of Chikkanna was the father of the plaintiff who died leaving behind defendant Nos.1 and 2 who are the sons and two daughters namely Lakshmakka and Akkamma. 3.3. Defendant No.3 is the daughter of defendant No.1 and some properties are standing in the name of defendant No.3 and therefore, suit was filed seeking share in the suit properties as the suit properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of plaintiff and defendants having inherited from their father Kodilingaiah. 4. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants entered appearance and filed written statement and also an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of C.P.C. by contending that there is no cause of action to file the suit and suit is barred by limitation. 5. It is their contention that plaintiff has executed a relinquishment or release deed in favour of his father - Kodilingaiah and defendant Nos.1 and 2 on 03.08.1992 and separated away from the family and as such, suit is not maintainable. 6. 5. It is their contention that plaintiff has executed a relinquishment or release deed in favour of his father - Kodilingaiah and defendant Nos.1 and 2 on 03.08.1992 and separated away from the family and as such, suit is not maintainable. 6. It is further contention of the defendants that suit item Nos.6 and 7 had fallen to the share of Kodilingaiah at a partition between the family members and after relinquishment deed, the plaintiff cannot lay claim on those properties. 7. Further, Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in respect of item No.6 of the property to Kodilingaiah personally and in the year 1987, Kodilingaiah executed a registered Will in the name of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and bequeathed item No. 6 of the suit property and therefore, sought for rejection of the plaint. 8. Same was opposed to by the plaintiff by filing detailed objection statement. 9. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties and noting the rival contentions of the parties, dismissed the application filed by the defendants inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.24 to 30 as under: “24. Further, Order 7 Rule 11(d) of C.P.C. also provides that, the plaint shall be rejected if the suit appears from the statement of the plaint itself to be barred by any law. Hence, in order to decide whether the suit is barred by any law it is the statement in the plaint which will have to be construed. Hence, only the prima-facie averments and the statement in the plaint has to be considered while ascertaining the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of C.P.C. Now, keeping all these observations this court proceeds to discuss the following. 25. The contention and rival contention are as already briefly placed on record as above. Now, this court would directly proceed with the present case on hand in pursuance to the provision raised. 26. Now, it is a already well established principle of law that, it is only the averments of the plaint and plaint alone which needs to be taken for due ascertainment while considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11(a)(d) of CPC. 27. The basic three points which the defendants have relied through the said application is focused upon the facts i.e., cause of action limitation and insufficient court fee as well as recording the jurisdiction. 27. The basic three points which the defendants have relied through the said application is focused upon the facts i.e., cause of action limitation and insufficient court fee as well as recording the jurisdiction. Now, with regard to the cause of action when the plaint averments is perused keeping in due consideration to the Limitation Act, on prima-facie and relying only on basic essential of the plaint, there is no such grounds made out by defendants to show that there is no cause of action. When the contention of the defendants is perused with regard to the said aspects, they are relying on certain documents and based on the recitals and contents of the documents, and submitted before the court that there is no cause of action. However, what is to be seen is that, basically whether the plaint in itself reflects no cause of action. The documents that are been relied by defendants is however subject matter of trial and the said document later to be placed for evidence for due analysis. 28. Now, regarding to the limitation aspect it is already clearly established principle of law that, the issue of limitation is a mixed question of facts and law and moreover the main relief sought in the present matter is for partition and separate possession. Further, regarding the declaration aspect again what is to be ascertained whether the same is barred by limitation or not which is however a mixed question of fact and law and there are certain averments regarding the subject matter barred on documents which requires full fledged trial and the veracity of the documents can be ascertained only after a full fledged trial on merits. 29. Now, coming to the valuation of the suit, that cannot be made a ground for rejection of plaint in itself, if at all the defendants prove before the court through cogent materials and evidence that there is insufficient of court fee, then the plaintiff is at all liberty to exhaust the remedy available to him. Further, regarding jurisdictional aspect, the defendants that, there is no pecuniary jurisdiction. However, the same needs to be proved by cogent materials and document and the same would not be a ground to reject the suit in itself and if at all the suit is barred by pecuniary jurisdiction the plaintiff has the liberty to seek return the plaint. Further, regarding jurisdictional aspect, the defendants that, there is no pecuniary jurisdiction. However, the same needs to be proved by cogent materials and document and the same would not be a ground to reject the suit in itself and if at all the suit is barred by pecuniary jurisdiction the plaintiff has the liberty to seek return the plaint. However, it is to be seen that the present matter was filed in the year of 2012 and the defendants have placed to present application in the year 2022. Hence, there requires detailed ascertainment whether the suit is not purely valued or not. 30. Now, moving further, the doctrine of adverse possession has been taken up by the defendants is the I.A., which was not the prayer in the written statement and the said aspect of doctrine of the adverse possession is a subject matter of trial and rejection of the plaint in the said grounds is not within the permissive limits of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of C.P.C. Hence, this being the set of facts at that, it is beneficial to rely on the certain decision laid down of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Further, in support of the same, it is beneficial to rely on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in Civil Appeal 1848/2022 dated 14.03.2022, wherein, it was clearly held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that if prima-facie seen that the suit is barred by limitation, the plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of C.P.C. and it was specifically observed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that, only a case on the face of it, it is seen that, the suit is barred by limitation, then an only the plaint can be rejected under the said provision and it was also held that the averments of the plaint is to be taken for consideration and the court has to go through the entire plaint averments. Hence, it is made clear that, if upon reading the entire averments of the plaint on its face value itself shows that the suit is barred by limitation, the provision under Order 7 Rule 11(d) can be made applicable to such suits.” 10. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants have filed the present revision petition. 11. Hence, it is made clear that, if upon reading the entire averments of the plaint on its face value itself shows that the suit is barred by limitation, the provision under Order 7 Rule 11(d) can be made applicable to such suits.” 10. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants have filed the present revision petition. 11. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contented that when there is a registered relinquishment/released deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of his father and defendant Nos.1 and 2, per se suit is not maintainable. 12. He would further contend that insofar as item No.6 of the suit property is concerned, Kodilingaiah was the owner of the said property by virtue of the grant of occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal in the individual capacity of Kodilingaiah. Therefore, he had every right to bequeath the said property in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 by way of a Will in the year 1987. 13. Thus, plaintiff has no semblance of right on any one of the properties which has been ignored by the learned Trial Judge and sought for admitting the revision petition for further consideration. 14. He would further contend that taking note of the year of executing the Will and relinquishment deed, suit filed in the year 2012 is per se barred by limitation and sought for admitting the revision petition. 15. Per contra, Sri. P. Sampath Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impound order. 16. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 17. On such perusal of the material on record, plaintiff is claiming right in the aspect of the suit property being the son of Kodilingaiah. 18. Defendants have come up with a plea that there is a registered Relinquishment/release deed executed by plaintiff in favour of his father and defendants 1 and 2. 19. Likewise, in respect of item No.6 of the property, defendants maintained that it is the self- acquired property of the Kodilingaiah, having been granted the said item of the suit property by the Land Tribunal and therefore, Kodilingaiah had every right to bequeath the same in favour of defendants No.1 and 2. 20. Plaintiff has filed detailed objections denying the above aspects of the matter. 21. 20. Plaintiff has filed detailed objections denying the above aspects of the matter. 21. In other words, there is plea and counter plea in respect of the nature of the property and rights of the parties. 22. Whenever there is a fact that has been propounded by one party and opposed by the other party, necessarily the issues are to be framed under Order XIV of the CPC If there is a triable issue, parties are required to prove those issues by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record. 23. In other words, when such disputed facts are there, same cannot be subject matter of enquiry under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC by holding a mini trial. Therefore, question of the plaint is to be rejected for want of cause of action cannot be countenanced in law. 24. Further, defence of the defendant cannot be the basis for rejection of the plaint by acting under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. 25. Now coming to the question of the second ground on which the suit is sought to be rejected is limitation. In a matter of this nature, question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and by mathematical precision, the limitation period cannot be deduced. 26. Therefore, rejection of the application filed by the defendants Under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is justified and it requires no interference in this revisional jurisdiction. 27. Hence, following: ORDER i. Revision Petition is dismissed. ii. All the contentions are kept open to be urged in the trial in accordance with law.