1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.811 OF 2009 Dr.N.Sudhirkumar & Anr. ...Applicants. v. Smt. Geubai B. Todkar Since deceased through L.Rs. 1 Smt. Geubai B. Todkar (Deceased) through her legal heirs 1A Shri Santosh S. Todkar & Anr. ...Respondents. Ms Chandana Salgaonkar-Radia, adv. for the Applicants. Mr.G.R.Rege i/by Ms Leena S. Sawant, advs., for the respondent nos.2 and 3. CORAM : J.H.Bhatia, J. DATE : 29th September, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Defendants, who are the revision applicants before this Court filed an application for rejecting plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 and also application under Section 9A to frame preliminary issue as to whether the trial Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The trial Court framed preliminary issue and held that it has jurisdiction. That order is challenged in the present revision application. 2 Undisputed fact is that plaintiff no.1 is the widow of the deceased Bapu Todkar. Other two plaintiffs are married daughters of 2 the plaintiff no.1 and Bapu Todkar, who was a member of the joint family holding ancestral property. In 1985 by two separate sale deeds, he sold away some of the properties out of the joint family property to defendants, who are the present revision applicants. In the year 2000 Bapu Todkar died. Plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No.1245 of 2009 for injunction simplicitor contending that they are the owners of the property and their names are recorded as members of the joint family in revenue record. They contended that deceased Todkar as member of the joint family could not have sold any portion in the property of the joint family as the partition had not taken place. They claimed to be in possession of the property and also claimed that being the members of the joint family, they are entitled to possession over the whole of the property and, therefore, they sought injunction without any other relief. 3 The learned counsel for the revision applicant relied upon Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy and Ors (2008) 4 SCC 594. In that case, the Supreme Court held that when the title of the plaintiff was under cloud and he does not have possession of the property, remedy is the suit for declaration of title and possession , with or without consequential relief of injunction. The Supreme Court was not 3 dealing with the question of rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession or not; whether any of the plaintiffs can claim title over the property or not; all these questions need to be looked into at the time of trial. In the present matter, defendants have not even filed written statement before the trial Court. Nothing is pointed out on the basis of which, it can be stated that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Whether the plaintiffs succeed or not is totally different matter. Atleast plaint can not be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the present revision application. 4 Revision application stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA, J.) 4