The application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is limited to the plaint's averments, and mixed questions of law and fact require evidence for resolution.

The petitioners have filed present civil revision under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( in short "CPC") being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12/05/2023 whereby application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 read with section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 filed by the petitioner / defendant has been dismissed by the trial Court.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the petitioner / defendant.

During pendency of civil suit, the petitioner preferred an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 by stating that the disputed land is personal property, therefore, during life time of respondent nos. 1 and 3 who are daughter-in-law and son have no right claiming title over the suit property, but after hearing both the parties, the trial Court has dismissed his application. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred present civil revision before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submits that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is bad in law and it suffers from patent illegality. The trial Court has fallen error of law by misleading the provisions contained under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. The trial Court has ignored the fact that the suit property has been purchased by defendant no. 3

by his own acquired income and defendant no. 1 and 3 are free to take decision regarding the suit land. All these aspects have been ignored by the trial Court. Hence, he prays that the impugned order be set aside

4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramisetty Venkatanna and another Vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb and others reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 372 and Vasantha (dead) through LR Vs. Rajalakshmi @ Rajam (dead) through LR (Civil Appeal no 3854/2014 decided on 13/02/2024)

5. Per-contra, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff submits that the order passed by the Court below is just and proper and not deserve for any interference. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the order delivered in the case of Gurdev Siongh Vs. Harvinder Singh ( Special Leave to Appeal (C)no. 19018/2022 decided on 09/11/2022

6. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the relevant documents.

7. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent is daughter-in-law of petitioner no. 1 and the suit property is self acquired property, therefore, the respondent is not entitled for claiming any title over the suit property, but the fact as to whether the suit land is a personal property or self-acquired property or ancestral property? it can only be decided after evidence of both the parties. At this stage, the Court cannot give any specific opinion. The aforesaid fact may be considered after evidence of both the parties, therefore, this is a mixed question of law and fact.

8. It is well settled principle of law that while considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC only the submission made in the plaint alone are to be looked into. It is also noteworthy that at the stage of consideration of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is confined only to the averments made in the plaint which could not be decided by an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC because the scope of scrutiny is very limited as has been held by the coordinate bench of this court in the case of Manglesh Shrivastava (Smt.) Vs. Mahraban reported in 2021(II) MPWN 57.

9. In view of the above, no case for interference is made out in this revision. The trial court has not committed any jurisdictional error or illegality in passing the impugned order. Accordingly, this civil revision is hereby dismissed.