ORDER : 1. Heard Sri. Goutham Chand, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Prashanth, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 to 7. 2. First defendant is the revision petitioner challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure in O.S. No.332/2023. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for the disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 3.1 Plaintiffs who are respondents No.1 to 6 in the revision petition filed a suit for partition in respect of the following immovable properties (hereinafter referred to as 'suit properties' for short): SCHEDULE "A" 1. The agricultural land bearing Sy.No.30 totally measuring 3 acre 21 guntas, 2. The agricultural land bearing Sy.No.30 measuring 5 acre, Both are totally measuring 8 acre 21 guntas, situated at Doopadahalli Village, Hosur Hobli, Shikaripura Taluk, both are bounded by E: Lands of Survey no 34 W: Lands of Survey no 20 N: Lands of Survey no 29 S: Kengatte Road 3. The agricultural land bearing Sy.No.23 totally measuring 3 acre 35 guntas, situated at Dhoopadahalli Village, Hosur Hobli, Shikaripura Taluk bounded by :- E: Lands of Survey no 22 W: Lands of Survey no 14 N: Kere Ari. S: Lands of Survey no-15. 4. The agricultural land bearing Sy.No.20 measuring 2 acre 1 guntas, 5. The agricultural land bearing Sy.No.20 measuring 5 acres, schedule 4 and 5 are situated at Dhoopadahalli Village, Hosur Hobli, Shikaripura Taluk, both are bounded by :- E: Lands of Survey no 30 W: Lands of Survey no 21 N: Lands of Survey no 26 S: Kere. 6. The agricultural land bearing Sy.No.22 totally measuring 2 acre 6 guntas, situated at Dhoopadahalli Village, Hosur Hobli, Shikaripura Taluk bounded by :- E: Lands of Survey no 21 W: Lands of Survey no 23 N: Kere Ari S: Kengatte Road. 7. The agricultural land bearing Sy.No 107 totally measuring 1 acre 32 guntas, situated at Dhoopadahalli Village, Hosur Hobli, Shikaripura Taluk bounded by :- E: Lands of Survey no 108 W: Kere N: Lands of Survey no 113 S: Lands of Survey no 106. 8. The agricultural land bearing Sy.No.26 totally measuring 1 acres, 9. The agricultural land bearing Sy. 7. The agricultural land bearing Sy.No 107 totally measuring 1 acre 32 guntas, situated at Dhoopadahalli Village, Hosur Hobli, Shikaripura Taluk bounded by :- E: Lands of Survey no 108 W: Kere N: Lands of Survey no 113 S: Lands of Survey no 106. 8. The agricultural land bearing Sy.No.26 totally measuring 1 acres, 9. The agricultural land bearing Sy. No.26 totally measuring 4 acre 37 guntas, schedule item no 8 and 9 are situated at Dhoopadahalli Village, Hosur Hobli, Shikaripura Taluk bounded by :- E: Lands of Survey no 29 W: Kere N: Government Land S: Kere. SCHEDULE "C" 1. The agricultural land bearing Sy.No.165/2 totally measuring 1 acre 28 guntas, situated at Haliyur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Shikaripura Taluk bounded by :- E: Remaining land in this survey no W: Lands of Survey no 166 N: lands of Survey no 170 S: Lands of Survey no 164 2. The agricultural land bearing Sy.No.312/2 totally measuring 1 acre 25 guntas, situated at Haliyur Village, Hosur Hobli, Shikaripura Taluk bounded by:- E: Lands of S C Shivanandappa W: Property of Abdul Majeed Sab N: Lands of Shivanandappa S: Lands of Mohan Singh. 3. The agricultural land bearing Sy.No.21 totally measuring 2 acre 20 guntas, situated at Doopadahalli Village, Hosur Hobli, Shikaripura Taluk bounded by :- E: Lands of Survey no 20 W: Lands of Survey no 22 N: Kere Ari S: Kengatte Road. 3.2 Admittedly, parties are Mohammedans by community and plaint averments containing that suit properties are joint family properties cannot be countenanced in law inasmuch as, such a concept is alien to Mohammedan law. 3.3 Nevertheless, plaint averments would reveal that parents of the plaintiffs and first defendant were the owners of the suit property. 3.4 It is contented that there was a partition affected during the lifetime of the parents of the plaintiffs and first defendant, excluding the plaintiffs in the said partition and after death of the father of the plaintiffs and first defendant. It is also contended that there was a relinquishment deed executed which was incorrect and therefore they claimed their legitimate share in the suit property. It is also contended that there was a relinquishment deed executed which was incorrect and therefore they claimed their legitimate share in the suit property. 3.5 Pursuant of the suit summons, first defendant appeared before the Court and filed a written statement denying the plaint averments and also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the plaint on the ground that the plaint itself is to be rejected as if it is a suit for partition by Hindus and therefore, there is no cause of action to file the suit. Said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing written objections. 3.6 Learned Trial Judge by way of impugned order, dismissed the said application inter alia holding in paragraphs No.9 and 10 as under: 9. POINT NO.1: The present application is filed by defendants U/o VII Rule 11 R/w Sec. 151 of CPC with prayer to reject the plaint as no cause of action. 10. It is to be noted that the suit is filed for relief of partition and separate possession by allotting legitimate share to the plaintiffs and also to declare partition as per MR.No. 10-1995-96 is not binding upon the share of plaintiffs. Notedly, schedule A and schedule B and schedule C properties are agricultural lands and also the plaintiffs are claiming as the daughter of one Mohammed Husain Sab and Mehaboob bi. It is relevant to note that the main contention of defendants for rejection of plaint that there is no cause of action arose to the plaintiffs to file the present suit. Further the defendants claimed that the plaintiffs have relinquished their rights over the suit schedule property by executing the registered relinquishment deed. However, it is contention of the plaintiffs at para No.3(a) of the plaint that the defendants have got the signature of the plaintiffs on one document in the year 2014 without disclosing the true facts. The plaintiffs have got to know recently about execution of relinquishment deed when the searching documents in the house. Further it is relevant to refer the para No.7 of the plaint, wherein it has been specifically stated that defendants neglected welfare of the joint family properties and even last week of August 2023 the plaintiff sought share over the suit schedule properties. Further it is relevant to refer the para No.7 of the plaint, wherein it has been specifically stated that defendants neglected welfare of the joint family properties and even last week of August 2023 the plaintiff sought share over the suit schedule properties. However, it is evident that the parties of present suit are governed by the Muslim Law and even it is not disputed by the defendants that the plaintiffs are the daughters of Mohammed Husain Sab. Notedly, the suit being partition and separate possession for allotting share of the plaintiffs. The learned counsel for defendant No.1 relied on the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Gulam Vs. Haji Kayyum Ali and others Judgment dated 18.09.1972 reported in AIR 1973 SC 554 . Perused the said ratio wherein it has held that execution of deeds acknowledging the receipt of valuable consideration and released the future possible rights of inheritance then Rule of estoppel is applicable. Further the Judgment of Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in the case of R. Sampath S/o Rajagopal Vs State of Karnataka by its secretary dated 05.11.2020 bearing WP.No.1860/2013 dated 05.11.2020 is relied by the counsel for defendant No.1. Perused the said Judgment wherein it has been held about procedure before sub-registrar about Registration of deeds. Thus, the said ratio is not helpful to the defendant No.1 the reject of plaint at this stage. However, ratio of Hon'ble Apex court referred, above with respect to estoppel against the person who executed the deeds is well settled principle of law. However, in the present case the defendants has to establish the validity of relinquishment deed during course of trial. Hence, said ratio will not assist the contention of defendant No.1 for rejection of plaint at this stage. It is important to note that as per Judgment of Hon'ble Apex court with respect to rejection of plaint, the contents of Written Statement or any defence setup by the defendants or any documents produced by the defendants are immaterial in determination rejection of plaintiff. Hence, the contention of defendants that plaintiffs have executed registered relinquishment deed, However, the defendants denied the same. It is evident that the plaint cannot be rejected for want of cause of action. Whereas at para No.11 and 15 the cause of action specifically pleaded by plaintiffs. Hence, the contention of defendants that plaintiffs have executed registered relinquishment deed, However, the defendants denied the same. It is evident that the plaint cannot be rejected for want of cause of action. Whereas at para No.11 and 15 the cause of action specifically pleaded by plaintiffs. Even other wise, the cause of action is bundle of rights, the defence setup by the defendants cannot be looked into in determination of rejection of plaint. The plaintiffs have stated in the plaint about one document has been got executed by the defendants. Therefore, the established facts suit being partition, the parties govern by Muslim Law, there will be fixed shares. Thus, when the plaint contents the cause of action at para No.7 and 12 the plaint cannot be rejected for want of cause of action but clearly pleaded on the want of cause of action Thus in light of aforesaid discussion this court answered the Point No.1 in the Negative. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, first defendant is before this Court in this revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner with vehemence reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contented that the very frame of the suit itself is incorrect inasmuch as the plaint averments would go to show that the allegations in the plaint are suit for partition in respect of Hindus and not Mohammedans. 6. He would further contend that plaint averments would itself reveal that during the lifetime of the parents of plaintiffs and first defendant, there was a partition and therefore, second suit for partition is not maintainable. 7. Counsel for petitioner would further contend that the trial Court misdirected itself in wrongly appreciating the material on record especially the stand taken by the defendant, ignoring the Relinquishment Deed executed subsequent to death of the father of the plaintiffs and first defendant, resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision question. 8. Per contra, Sri Prashanth, learned counsel for the respondent would support the impugned order. 9. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 10. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the parties are Mohammedans by religion. Therefore, the law applicable to Hindus would not be applicable to them. 11. Admittedly, parties are governed by their personal law. 9. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 10. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the parties are Mohammedans by religion. Therefore, the law applicable to Hindus would not be applicable to them. 11. Admittedly, parties are governed by their personal law. Therefore, principles of Mohammedan law would operate in respect of the rights of the parties. 12. It is pertinent to note that there is an allegation in the plaint itself that there was a partition. However, plaintiffs also contend that for the said partition affected by the parents of the plaintiffs and first defendant, plaintiffs were not parties. 13. Such a partition whether at all is valid during the lifetime of the parents is a question that needs to be adjudicated in the trial in accordance with the principles of Mohammedan law. 14. Further, after the death of the father of the plaintiffs and first defendant, there is a Relinquishment Deed executed by all plaintiffs and mother in favour of the first defendant. 15. If there is no pre-existing right or what is the right that has been possessed by the plaintiffs which was subject matter of the said Relinquishment Deed and whether the execution of the Relinquishment Deed was in accordance with law or not cannot be decided by holding a mini trial at the time of considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 16. Therefore, if not in happy words and proper reasons learned Trial Judge has arrived at the right conclusion in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner. 17. It is needless to emphasize that the suit requires to be adjudicated on merits by considering the defence raised by first defendant in the trial strictly in accordance with the principles of Mohammedan law. 18. With that liberty for the petitioner, this Court does not find any good reasons to interfere with the dismissal of the impugned order. 19. Hence, following Order: ORDER: Civil revision petition is dismissed.