ORDER : Vijaykumar A. Patil, J. W.P.No.30403/2018 is filed challenging the order dated 27.02.2018 passed on I.A.No.7 filed by the respondent No.1- plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , in O.S.No.91/2012 and W.P.No.39514/2018 is filed challenging the order dated 08.08.2018 passed on I.A.No.9 filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2-defendant Nos.11 and 12 under Order VI Rule 16 read with Section 151 of the CPC, in O.S.No.91/2012 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Arasikere. 2. Both the writ petitions arise out of the same suit between the same parties. With their consent, they are heard together and common order is passed. 3. Heard. 4. Smt.Sona Vakkund, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.39514/2018 submits that the defendant Nos.11 and 12 filed an application to strike out a pleading pertaining to the northern half portion of item No.20 of the suit schedule properties. The Trial Court allowed the said application by coming to the conclusion that the northern portion of item No.20 of the suit schedule properties is a self- acquired property without a complete trial on all issues as the case of the plaintiff is that all the properties are the joint family properties. 5. It is submitted that the application for striking out the pleading can be allowed only if the circumstances referred in Rule 16 of Order VI of the CPC are present. The striking out of pleading can be allowed if it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, prejudice to the other side, embrace, delay the trial or abuse of process of law. In the case on hand, none of the ingredients of Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC are found in the application filed by the defendant Nos.11 and 12. However, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has no right to add the property which is in no way relating to the joint family and allowed the application. It is further submitted that the very same Trial Court allowed the impleading application filed by the plaintiff to implead defendant Nos.10 to 12 in the suit by recording a finding that the acquisition of property by the said defendants is either self-acquired property or joint family property can be decided after a full-fledged trial. It is further submitted that the very same Trial Court allowed the impleading application filed by the plaintiff to implead defendant Nos.10 to 12 in the suit by recording a finding that the acquisition of property by the said defendants is either self-acquired property or joint family property can be decided after a full-fledged trial. Now, the very same Court recorded contrary finding and allowed the application for striking of the pleading. Hence, she seeks to allow the writ petition by the plaintiff and dismiss the writ petition filed by the proposed defendants. 6. Per contra, Sri.Sadashivaiah K.G., learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in W.P.No.39514/2018 and the petitioner in W.P.No.30403/2018 supports the impugned order of the Trial Court on I.A.No.9 filed under Order VI Rule 16 read with Section 151 of the CPC. It is submitted that the defendant No.3 along with Smt.Hulagamma jointly purchased item No.20 of the suit schedule properties under the registered sale deed dated 09.02.1987 and thereafter, the said property was sold by the defendant No.3 and defendant No.11 to the husband of defendant No.3 namely Rangegowda and to the defendant No.12 who is the wife of defendant No.11. It is further submitted that Smt.Hulagamma is a stranger to the family and the subject property is not a joint family property. It is also submitted that without any justifiable reason, item No.20 of the suit schedule properties which is a self-acquired property of the defendant No.3 and Smt.Hulagamma has been included in the plaint and the said Smt.Hulagamma and her daughter Venkatalakshmamma are not parties to the suit. The Trial Court, considering the material on record has rightly come to the conclusion that the northern portion of the item No.20 of the suit schedule properties is not a joint family property and ordered to strike off which does not call for any interference. It is contended that the Trial Court ordered to array defendant Nos.10 to 12 as the parties to the suit without appreciating the fact that the property acquired by them is a self-acquired property which cannot be the subject matter of the suit. Hence, he seeks to allow W.P.No.30403/2018 and to dismiss W.P.No.39514/2018. 7. It is contended that the Trial Court ordered to array defendant Nos.10 to 12 as the parties to the suit without appreciating the fact that the property acquired by them is a self-acquired property which cannot be the subject matter of the suit. Hence, he seeks to allow W.P.No.30403/2018 and to dismiss W.P.No.39514/2018. 7. Sri.D.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 to 6, in W.P.No.39514/2018 supports the impugned order of the Trial Court dated 08.08.2018 passed on I.A.No.9 and submits that the subject property in the application is the self-acquired property and not the joint family property and the Trial Court under the impugned order rightly allowed the application for striking out the pleading with regard to the northern half portion of item No.20 of the suit schedule properties from the schedule which does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.39514/2018, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 in WP No.39514/2018, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 to 6 in W.P.No.39514/2018 and perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both the sides. 9. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.91/2012 for the relief of partition and separate possession. The subject matter of the suit consists of 22 items of the properties. The plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.7 under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC to implead defendant Nos.10 to 12. The Trial Court allowed the said application which is the subject matter in W.P.No.30403/2018. The material on record indicates that the defendant No.3 and the defendant No.11 sold the southern and northern portions of item No.20 of the suit schedule properties to the defendant Nos.10 and 12, respectively and those defendants are sought to be arrayed as parties in the suit. The Trial Court rightly allowed the said application rejecting the objection of the defendant No.3 and the proposed defendants that the property referred in the application was a self-acquired property. The Trial Court recorded finding that whether the property is a self-acquired property or a joint family property is to be decided after a full- fledged trial. The Trial Court rightly allowed the said application rejecting the objection of the defendant No.3 and the proposed defendants that the property referred in the application was a self-acquired property. The Trial Court recorded finding that whether the property is a self-acquired property or a joint family property is to be decided after a full- fledged trial. In my considered view, the Trial Court was fully justified in allowing the said application as the plaintiff is specifically contending that all the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties and the plaintiff is entitled to a share in those properties. The suit is for partition and separate possession and the issue with regard to the nature of the properties and the claim of the plaintiff is required to be adjudicated by the Trial Court in the pending suit. 10. The defendant Nos.11 and 12 in the suit filed an application in I.A.No.9 under Order VI Rule 16 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking to strike out the pleading pertaining to the northern half portion of item No.20 of the suit schedule properties i.e. Sy.No.450/A1A1 measuring 0-26.08 guntas situated at Arasikere Village, Kasaba Hobli, Arasikere Taluk with boundaries of the property belonging to Rangegowda on the ground that the defendant No.3 and one Smt.Hulagamma jointly purchased item No.20 of the suit schedule properties under a registered sale deed dated 09.02.1987 and at that time, defendant No.3 was already married and residing with her husband at Arasikere and the said property was streedhana property of the defendant No.3 and Hulagamma. It is averred that the said Hulgamma was the absolute owner of half of the said property and after her death, her daughter Venkatalakshmamma along with defendant No.3- Kamalamma became owners and the said Venkatalakshmamma also died and the said property was succeeded by her son Anand-defendant No.11. It is also averred that the defendant No.11 and Kamalamma-defendant No.3 got divided item No.20 of the suit schedule properties orally in 2010 and as per partition, southern half portion of 0-26.08 guntas fell to the share of Kamalamma-defendant No.3 and northern half portion of 0-26.08 guntas fell to the share of defendant No.11. It is also averred that the defendant No.11 and Kamalamma-defendant No.3 got divided item No.20 of the suit schedule properties orally in 2010 and as per partition, southern half portion of 0-26.08 guntas fell to the share of Kamalamma-defendant No.3 and northern half portion of 0-26.08 guntas fell to the share of defendant No.11. Thereafter, defendant No.3 sold her share to her husband and defendant No.11 sold his share to his wife under a registered sale deed dated 31.05.2013 and thereafter, the property was converted from agriculture to non-agriculture purpose, sites were formed and the subject property is the self-acquired property and hence, not available for partition. The Trial Court accepted the version of the defendant Nos.3, 10 and 11 and ordered for striking out of the pleading by deleting the northern portion of item No.20 of the suit schedule properties from the plaint. In my considered view, the Trial Court has committed a grave error in recording the finding that the plaintiff has no right over the said property and the said property is a self- acquired property. The contention of the plaintiff is that all the suit schedule properties referred in the plaint are the joint family properties and are entitled for share. 11. The issue whether the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties or the self-acquired properties can be ascertained only after recording of the evidence by the parties. In the application filed by the defendant Nos.11 and 12, on oath, they made an assertion that the defendant No.3 has acquired the property after her marriage and the said property is her self-acquired property. The same cannot be adjudicated by recording a finding on the application when the plaintiff is seriously disputing such assertion in the plaint and the objection is filed to the application. It is trite law that the application for striking out the pleading cannot be allowed mechanically. My view gains support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SATHI VIJAY KUMAR Vs. TOTA SINGH AND ORS. , [(2006) 13 SCC 353] The power to strike out a pleading is extra-ordinary in nature and must be exercised by the Trial Court sparingly and with extreme care, caution and circumspection. My view gains support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SATHI VIJAY KUMAR Vs. TOTA SINGH AND ORS. , [(2006) 13 SCC 353] The power to strike out a pleading is extra-ordinary in nature and must be exercised by the Trial Court sparingly and with extreme care, caution and circumspection. The Trial Court is required to consider whether the application for striking out of a pleading falls under the category of unnecessary pleading, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, tends to prejudice or embrace otherside or delay the fair trial or is otherwise an abuse of process of the Court. In the case on hand, the Trial Court has not recorded the finding as to under which of the grounds referred in Rule 16 of Order VI of the CPC, the pleadings are struck off. The material on record indicates that the defendant No.3 and Smt.Hulagamma jointly purchased item No.20 of the suit schedule properties under the registered sale deed dated 09.02.1987 and after the death of said Hulagamma, it is claimed that her daughter Venkatalakshmamma succeeded to the share of Hulagamma. The said Venkatalakshmamma also died and one Anand who is defendant No.11 claiming to be the son of said Venkatalakshmamma and grandson of Hulagamma claims joint ownership over the item No.20 of the suit schedule properties along with defendant No.3-Kamalamma. The affidavit accompanying the application indicates that both the owners have orally partitioned the property in the year 2010 and the southern half has fallen to the share of Kamalamma-defendant No.3 and the northern half has fallen to the share of Anand and later, the said Kamalamma-defendant No.3 sold her portion to her husband under the registered sale deed dated 31.05.2013 and similarly, the said Anand sold his share of the property to his wife. The aforesaid transaction prima facie creates a doubt with regard to the nature of property and its acquisition. The contention of the petitioner-plaintiff that the property purchased under the registered sale deed dated 09.02.1987 by Hulagamma and defendant No.3 is from the funds of the father of the plaintiff. The alleged division of a joint property purchased by Smt.Hulagamma and defendant No.3-Kamalamma and later alienation of the portion as per the division is also required to be gone into the pending suit as admittedly, defendant No.3 is the sister of the plaintiff and a family member. The alleged division of a joint property purchased by Smt.Hulagamma and defendant No.3-Kamalamma and later alienation of the portion as per the division is also required to be gone into the pending suit as admittedly, defendant No.3 is the sister of the plaintiff and a family member. The suit being for partition and separate possession is required to be adjudicated on the aforesaid issues as to whether the father of the plaintiff has invested the money and the property is purchased under the registered sale deed dated 09.02.1987 and these facts cannot be adjudicated on the application filed by the respondents under Order VI Rule 16 read with Section 151 of the CPC. 12. In view of the aforesaid observation, I am of the considered view that the issue with regard to the nature of the property involved in item No.20 of the suit schedule properties is required to be gone into by the Trial Court in a full-fledged trial and allowing the application for striking out the pleading is bad in law. 13. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition in W.P.No.30403/2018 is dismissed. (ii) W.P.No.39514/2018 is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.08.2018 passed on I.A.No.9 filed under Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.91/2012 is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.9 is rejected. No orders to cost.