1. The applicant is aggrieved by rejection of its application filed under order 7 rule 11 of CPC vide order dated 18.3.2013 passed in Civil Suit No.53-A/2012 by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Sironj, District Vidisha preferred this revision application.

2. The relevant facts necessary for disposal of the present case lie in a narrow compass. The respondent No.1 Smt. Husna Bano is representing herself as the sister of applicant/defendant No.1 and claims that the agricultural land, described in paras 1 and 2 of the plaint, is recorded in the name of the applicant/defendant No.1 since the years 1971-1972 and at such point of time the applicant/defendant No.1 was a minor which makes it clear that the consideration for purchase of suit property was paid by father of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 and the defendant. By making such assertion, the plaintiff seeks to draw conclusion that even though the land was recorded in the name of the defendant No.1 but in a reality, the actual owner is their father and as per the prevailing Muslim Law, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 has ownership over the suit property to the extent of 1/6th share. Consequently, a suit for declaration of title and part