The perusal of the plaint reveals a cause of action for the suit, and matters such as Will execution and joint family status should be considered during the trial, not at the initial stage.

A.S. Pachhapure. J.— The Petitioners have challenged the order on I.A. No 2 filed under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 Code of Code of Civil Procedure rejecting the application.

2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this petition are as under :

3. I will refer to the parties as per their rank before the Court below for the purpose of convenience.

4. The Petitioners herein are Defendants 1 and 2 whereas Respondents 1 and 2 are the Plaintiffs in the suit bearing O.S. No 9138/2006 instituted by Respondents 1 to 3 herein seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of their share in the suit properties.

5. The Petitioners who are Defendants 1 and 2 have contested the suit contending that there is no cause of action for the suit and that there is no joint family and in the circumstances, they submitted an application under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 Code of Code of Civil Procedure requesting to reject the plaint as it does not reveal a cause of action.

6. The Plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their share in the suit Schedule properties mentioned in Schedule A to J and the perusal of the plaint reveals that the first Defendant, first Plaintiff and one Rajmal are the three sons of Late. Misrimal and during the life time of Misrimal, the joint family constituted a from when in the-members of the family, i.e., one Smt. Badambai, w/o. Misrimal. (mother of first Plaintiff and first Defendant), Gopidevi. Wife of Rajmal, the first Defendant and one Kantilal, a stranger to the-family were inducted as partners of the said firm which was carrying on the business after its constitution in the year 1975 in the name of M. Misrimal and Company Kantilal, a stranger retired from the firm in 1981 and the firm was reconstituted on 28.10.1981 wherein the first Defendant. Wife of Rajmal, Badambai, Wife of Misrimal and Nirmala Kumar. Wife of first Plaintiff (the second Plaintiff) were inducted as the partners.

7. During the year 1992, Rajmal, the eldest brother of first Plaintiff/first Defendant separated from the family and the house property owned by the family at Mudagere, the house property bearing No. 63, Hospital Road, Bangalore, the family house located at the native place in Rajasthan and the trade of M. Misrimal and Company at Mudagere was given to the share of the eldest brother. The ancestral site which was the joint family property of the first Plaintiff and the first Defendant which is described as 'A' Schedule property and further. 'B' Schedule property which are the lands bearing different survey numbers at Bellahalli Village and Kogilu Village measuring totally about 52 acres and 25 guntas were owned by Jyothi, Vidya and Defendants 5 and 6. The Plaintiffs and the first Defendant purchased 1/4 undivided share in these properties for a consideration of Rs. 6,53,000/- and the Plaintiffs claim that the said property was purchased for the benefit of joint family and it was purchased in the name of 3rd Defendant as he-is also a co-parcener of the joint family. Therefore, the Plaintiffs claim that he has 1/2 share in the undivided interest purchased in the name of 3rd Defendant.

8. The first Plaintiff and the first Defendant together purchased the property in suit Schedule 'C which is 1/6th out of the total extent under a registered sale deed dated 17.11.1995 in favour of the first Plaintiff and 'D' schedul properties which is 1/5th interest in the said property was purchased during November 1996 and it was an undivided interest in the said properties. Likewise, the Plaintiffs claim that 'D' Schedule properties was also jointly owned by Defendants 7, 8, 9 and 11 and the family of first Plaintiff and first Defendant and in the circumstances, the Plaintiffs have impleaded Defendants 7, 8, 9 and 11 as parties to the suit. Schedule 'E' property is house property belonging to the joint family in which the members of the family of the first Defendant are residing and this was purchased for the