JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally at the stage of admission by consent of parties. 2. Plaintiffs/Original Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 in RCS No. 78 of 2023 pending before Civil Judge, Junior Division, Paithan, impugns order dated 07.10.2023, passed below Exh. 78, rejecting their application seeking rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (Hereinafter, parties are referred as per their original status in the suit for the sake of convenience and brevity.) 3. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 - Original Plaintiffs instituted RCS No. 78 of 2023 seeking relief of partition, separate possession, permanent injunction and mesne profit against defendants. Plaintiffs contend that suit lands were originally owned by Motilal s/o Dulichand Saraf. He had a son Natvarlal and two daughters from first wife. After death of his first wife he married to Saraswatibai. He got three sons and five daughters from second marriage with Saraswatibai. After death of Motilal suit properties were mutated in the name of Natvarlal. Natvarlal transferred suit properties in name of Saraswatibai by way of partition in the year 1976-77 vide mutation entry No. 08. Saraswatibai resided with her elder son Rameshchandra. Taking benefit of said fact, Rameshchandra mutated names of his sons Jagdish and Mahendra over suit properties by way of family arrangement. Since then properties remained mutated in the name of Jagdish and Mahendra. Eventually, Jagdish and Mahendra mutated properties in name of their wives vide mutation entry Nos. 1044 and 1045 dated 31.03.2008. 4. Rameshchandra Motilal Saraf was providing share of income to his brothers Pramodchandra and Vinodchandra and also taking care of his sisters. Therefore, none asked him about suit properties or raised any claim for partition. However, upon death of Rameshchandra on 07.09.2022, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and 5 to 7 started dealing with properties with third persons, when plaintiffs asked them, they avoided to provide information. Plaintiffs came to know that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had a deal of suit land and on search with office of Registrar, came to know about agreement to sale dated 22.12.2022, executed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of defendant Nos. 3 and 4. Even defendant Nos. 5 and 6 intending to sale properties. Since defendants started dealing with properties, ignoring rights of plaintiffs, cause of action arose to file suit. 5. 1 and 2 in favour of defendant Nos. 3 and 4. Even defendant Nos. 5 and 6 intending to sale properties. Since defendants started dealing with properties, ignoring rights of plaintiffs, cause of action arose to file suit. 5. Defendants filed Written Statement refuting claim of plaintiffs. Independently, they filed applications below Exh. 23 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) of CPC seeking rejection of plaint on two grounds, firstly, suit is based on fictitious and illusory cause of action, secondly, suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. 6. Trial Court, after considering rival submissions rejected application filed below Exh. 23 holding that issue as to limitation as well as cause of action can be decided on trial, since both are mixed questions of law and fact. 7. Mr. Karpe, (CRA No. 13/2024) and Mr. Gangakhedkar, (CRA No. 12/2024) learned Advocates appearing for applicants criticized the impugned order contending that trial Court failed to appreciate contents of plaint in proper perspective, so also misapplied law, as such, fell in error while rejecting application. In support of their contentions they relied upon following judgments : (i) Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanus (Gajra) Dead Through Legal Representatives and Others , [ (2020) 7 SCC 366 ] (ii) Ramisetty Venkatanna and Anr. Vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb and Ors. , [AIR Online 2023 SC 459] (iii) Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) By Legal Representatives , [ (2020) 16 SCC 601 ] (iv) Murugan and Others Vs. Kesava Gounder (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others , [ (2019) 20 SCC 633 ] (v) Roop Lal Sathi Vs. Nachhattar Singh , [ AIR 1982 SC 1559 ] (vi) Avinash Tanu Govekar and Others Vs. Anjani A. Govekar and Others , [2024 SCC OnLine Bom 624] (vii) V. Huligeppa V. Lingappa Since Deceased by His Lrs. Vs. V.Bheema and Ors. , [AIR Online 2022 KAR 1122] (viii) Smt. Lajwant Kaur and Another Vs. Abanshi Singh and Others , [AIR 1979 P&H 268] (ix) Chhotelal Babulal and Another Vs. Premlal Girdhalilal and Others , [ AIR 1977 MP 34 ] 8. Vs. V.Bheema and Ors. , [AIR Online 2022 KAR 1122] (viii) Smt. Lajwant Kaur and Another Vs. Abanshi Singh and Others , [AIR 1979 P&H 268] (ix) Chhotelal Babulal and Another Vs. Premlal Girdhalilal and Others , [ AIR 1977 MP 34 ] 8. The parameters for exercise of jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 (a & d) of CPC has been elaborately discussed by the Supreme Court of India in Dahiben (supra) and same has been reiterated in subsequent judgment in Srihari Hanumandas Totala vs Hemant Vithal Kamat , [ (2021) 9 SCC 99 ] and in Remesh Venkat Vs. Sasyan Javmal Saheb , [A.I.R. Online 2023 SC 459] Prior to that, in case of T. Arvindan Vs. T.V. Satyapal, [(1977) 4 SCC 461] P.V. Guru Raj Reddy & Anr. vs P. Neeradha Reddy & Ors. , [ 2015 SCC 331 ] Chotanben and Anr. vs Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar and Ors. , [ (2018) 6 SCC 422 ]. Important aspects of Order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) have been discussed. The summary of law as has been evolved till this date can be stated as below : “Remedy under Order 7 Rule 11 is an independent and special remedy, wherein court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold without proceeding to record evidence and conducting trial, on the basis of evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in this provision….. The underlying object of Order 7 Rule 11(a) is that, if in a suit no cause of action is disclosed, or suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11(d), the Court would not permit plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceeding in the suit. In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted. A duty is cast on court to determine, as to whether plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, read in conjunction with documents relied upon or whether suit is barred by any law. In exercise of powers under this provision, the court would determine if assertions made in the plaint are contrary to the statutory law, or judicial dicta, for deciding whether the case for rejection of plaint at the threshold is made out. In exercise of powers under this provision, the court would determine if assertions made in the plaint are contrary to the statutory law, or judicial dicta, for deciding whether the case for rejection of plaint at the threshold is made out. Similarly, the test for exercising the power under Order 7 Rule 11 is that, if the averments in plaint are taken in entirety, in conjunction with documents relied upon, would the same result in a decree being passed. 9. The aforesaid legal position has been recently reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Ramishetti Venkatanna and another vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb and others , [ (2023) 8 Scale 294 ] and in case of Raghavendra Sharan Singh vs. Ram Prasanna Singh through LRs , [ (2020) 16 SCC 601 ]. 10. At this stage, reference can be given to observations of Supreme Court in case of “Swami Atmananda and others vs. Sri. Ramakrishna Tapovanam and others” , [ (2005) 10 SCC 51 ] , wherein Supreme Court observed as under :- “Cause of action” means every fact which would be necessary for 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. While considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, what is required to be decided is whether the plaint discloses a real cause of action, or something purely illusory. What is required is that a clear right must be made out in the plaint. If, however, by clever drafting of the plaint, it has created the illusion of a cause of action, it should be nipped in the bud, so that bogus litigation will end at the earliest stage. The court must be vigilant against any camouflage or suppression, and determine whether the litigation is utterly vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the court.” 11. The court must be vigilant against any camouflage or suppression, and determine whether the litigation is utterly vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the court.” 11. In yet another judgment, in the matter of “T. Arivandandam vs. T.V.Satyapal and another” , [ (1977) 4 SCC 467 ,] Supreme Court observed as under :- “The learned Munsiff must remember that if on a meaningful – not formal – reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order X, C.P.C. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits.” 12. In light of aforesaid exposition of law in present case, if the plaint along with documents is considered following factual aspects can be carved out : (i) Suit property is originally owned by Motilal Saraf and upon his death it was mutated in the name of eldest son from his first wife i.e. Natwarlal. (ii) During life time of Natwarlal, mutation entry No. 08 was taken in name of Saraswatibai stating that Natwarlal partitioned and transferred suit property in name of his mother Saraswatibai. (iii) Thereafter, under mutation entry No. 190 Saraswatibai mutated name of her grand-son i.e. sons of eldest son Rameshchandra on the basis of unregistered partition deed. 13. Saraswatibai had three sons and five daughters. Plaintiffs and defendants are claiming their rights through Motilal and Saraswatibai. In that view of the matter, so as to understand controversy, reference to genealogy would be necessary which is given here as below : 14. Mr. Karpe, (CRA No. 13/2024) and Mr. Gangakhedkar, (CRA No. 12/2024) learned Advocates appearing for applicants submit that Saraswatibai had acquired absolute title over suit property. She mutated suit properties in the name of her grand sons namely Jagdish and Mahendra, therefore, plaintiffs, who are widow and sons of Vinodchandra could not have claimed any right in property. Suit property lost joint status when Natwarlal partitioned the same and given it to Saraswatibai. Saraswatibai who was absolute owner. Mr. She mutated suit properties in the name of her grand sons namely Jagdish and Mahendra, therefore, plaintiffs, who are widow and sons of Vinodchandra could not have claimed any right in property. Suit property lost joint status when Natwarlal partitioned the same and given it to Saraswatibai. Saraswatibai who was absolute owner. Mr. Gangakhedkar, learned Advocate would further submit that first mutation entry in the name of Saraswatibai was taken in the year 1976 and thereafter, mutation entry No. 190 in name of her grand sons’ was taken some time in year 2003. Thereafter, in year 2008 Jagdish and Mahendra i.e. grand sons of Saraswatibai transferred lands in name of their wives. All aforesaid mutation entries clearly depict exclusive ownership and possession enjoyed by Saraswatibai, thereafter Jagdish and Mahendra acquired ownership. It is therefore, evident that rights, if any, in favour of plaintiffs have been excluded firstly in 1976, then in 2003 and2008. Therefore, applying Article 110 of the Limitation Act, suit could have been brought within a period of 12 years therefrom. Plaintiffs cannot be permitted to open stale claim on the basis of fictitious and illusory cause of action. 15. Apparently the averments in plaint make a reference to mutation entries, initially in the name of Natvarlal, then in the name of Saraswatibai, thereafter in the name of of Jagdish and Mahendra. However, question is as to whether, such mutation entries creates substantive rights in favour of Saraswatibai as owner in exclusion of rights of other legal representatives of Motilal and whether, grand sons of Saraswatibai i.e. Jagdish and Mahendra acquired absolute title on basis of mutation entries as regards partition by Saraswatibai. All these questions require evidence at trial. The contentions raised in defence that Saraswatibai acquired absolute title and entitled to dispose of property or Jagdish and Mahendra acquired title to suit properties under mutation entries cannot be appreciated at this stage. It is trite that mutation entries itself do not confer title. Needless to state that, pre-existing rights if acknowledged under mutation entry, flow of title can be presumed. Therefore, unless preexisting rights or transfer of property under any instrument, decree or title deed, preceding mutation entry is brought on record, presumption as to title cannot be drawn. The Issue of limitation also needs trial, particularly so as to ascertain date of knowledge of exclusion of rights of plaintiff from joint family property. Therefore, unless preexisting rights or transfer of property under any instrument, decree or title deed, preceding mutation entry is brought on record, presumption as to title cannot be drawn. The Issue of limitation also needs trial, particularly so as to ascertain date of knowledge of exclusion of rights of plaintiff from joint family property. Plain reading of Article 110 of the Limitation Act depicts that limitation of 12 years shall begin for seeking partition from date when exclusion of rights came to knowledge of plaintiff. Therefore, merely on the basis of mutation entry, unless specific knowledge of exclusion of right is brought on record, plaintiffs cannot be unsuited at the nascent stage of suit. 16. There cannot be quarrel as to proposition of law espoused under judgments relied upon by learned Advocates appearing for applicants. However, conclusion drawn by trial Court that issue as to exclusion of rights and nature of cause of action needs trial, in the facts of case cannot be faulted. Remedy under under Order VII Rule 11 (a & b) of CPC is a drastic step. Unless upon recording of stipulations in plaint and documents annexed thereto, definite conclusion as to bar of suit by limitation is discernible, suit cannot be terminated on defence of limitation. 17. Even cause of action is bundle of facts. In present case, plain reading of the averments in plaint shows that when defendants started dealing with property with outsiders of family, particularly upon death of Rameshchandra, cause of action to file present suit arose. Question, if cause of action is camouflage, cannot be determined simply on the basis of contents of plaint and annexures thereto. 18. In result, no case is made out to interference in impugned order, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of CPC. 19. In result, both Civil Revision Applications stand rejected. 20. Rule is discharged.