( 1 ) wp5535.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5535 OF 2010 Amrutrao s/o. Rangnathrao Kulkarni & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Smt. Indubai Bhagwanrao Joshi & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. S.K. Kulkarni h/f. Mr. Prashant K. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mrs. S.A. Dhumal-Tambat, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6919 OF 2010 Tulshiram s/o. Panduji Sakhare and Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Manik s/o. Tulshiram Sakhare .. Respondent Mr. A.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.V. Warad, Advocate for sole respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7128 OF 2010 Prashant s/o. Nagnathrao Paldewar & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Jankabai w/o. Kalba Shinde and Ors. .. Respondents ( 2 ) wp5535.10 Mr. A.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. D.Y. Nandedkar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 6. CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR,J. DATED : 24.01.2011 P.C. :- 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners’ applications for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. came to be dismissed. 3. The applications were moved in the respective suits alleging that the suits itself were not maintainable for the reason that defendants in the suits were sole and exclusive owners and possessors of the suit property, because there was no existence of the joint or ancestral property as such. The suits are for partition and separate possession. The rights of the parties cannot be determined at such peremptory stage. The plaints could not have been rejected by invoking Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C., when the disputed question of the fact ( 3 ) wp5535.10 as well as the question of interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act is involved. The impugned orders do not suffer from any arbitrariness or perversity. 4. The petitions are dismissed. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR,J.] snk/2010/JAN11/wp5535.10