Rejection of plaint requires an apparent legal bar on the pleadings; evidence-based property and benami disputes must go to trial.

A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) unless the statutory bar is apparent from the plaint itself. The Delhi HC held that disputed questions such as whether the properties were joint family assets or self-acquired, whether the Hindu Undivided Family continued to exist, and whether the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act applied required evidence and could not be decided at the threshold. Objections concerning a minor coparcener's partition claim and the mother's role as next friend also raised matters for trial. The application for rejection of plaint therefore failed, and the suit was directed to proceed on evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure on the grounds that it disclosed no cause of action and that the suit was barred by Hindu law, the Hindu Succession Act, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the Guardians and Wards Act, the Specific Relief Act and the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act.

Analysis: The power under Order VII Rule 11(d) is confined to examining the plaint as a whole and whether the bar of law is apparent from the pleadings themselves. Questions requiring evidence, including whether the disputed properties were joint family assets, whether the Hindu Undivided Family continued to exist, and whether the properties were self-acquired, could not be decided at that stage. The pleadings raised triable issues as to the source of the properties, the existence and extent of Hindu Undivided Family assets, and the effect of the competing stands taken by the defendant. The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act did not justify rejection of the plaint because the claimed exclusion under the Act and the factual applicability of the statutory bar required adjudication on evidence, and in any event a plaint cannot be rejected in part. The objections based on the minor plaintiff's entitlement to seek partition and the competence of the mother to act as next friend also did not warrant rejection at the threshold, since the maintainability of a minor coparcener's partition claim and the question of benefit to the minor are matters to be tested on the record.

Conclusion: The plaint could not be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) at the threshold; the application was not maintainable and failed.

Final Conclusion: The suit was directed to proceed, with the disputed questions concerning the nature of the properties and the parties' respective rights left for determination on evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) unless the bar of law is evident from the plaint itself, and issues requiring evidence or affecting only part of the plaint must be left for trial.

---