Rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 barred where pleaded facts may fall within a benami exception and evidence is needed

In an application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the court must confine itself to the plaint averments and the documents relied on by the plaintiff. Where the pleaded facts are capable of bringing the claim within a statutory exception to the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, rejection is impermissible and the dispute must be tested by evidence. The plaint also could not be rejected on limitation or for want of cancellation of the conveyance deed, because the plaintiffs asserted joint family and beneficial rights and the accrual of limitation depended on disputed facts. The suit was therefore allowed to proceed to trial.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. (ii) Whether the suit was barred by limitation or otherwise not maintainable for want of cancellation of the conveyance deed.

Issue (i): Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.

Analysis: For deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the plaint averments and the documents relied upon by the plaintiff can be examined. If the plaint, taken as true, discloses a case falling within an exception to the statutory bar, rejection is not permissible. The pleading here asserted that the property was purchased for the benefit of the entire family, that the defendant held it as nominee or trustee, and that the arrangement was one of trust and confidence rather than a bare benami holding. The expression employed in the plaint was not to be read in a narrow technical sense, and the pleaded facts were capable of attracting the exception relating to a trustee or person standing in a fiduciary capacity. The question whether the property was truly joint family property or whether the claimed fiduciary arrangement existed was a matter requiring evidence.

Conclusion: The plaint was not liable to be rejected on the ground of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit was barred by limitation or otherwise not maintainable for want of cancellation of the conveyance deed.

Analysis: The plaintiffs were not seeking cancellation of the conveyance deed; they asserted a right in the property as joint family property and pleaded that their title had been admitted until a later hostile act triggered the cause of action. In a claim of this nature, the question of when limitation began to run depended upon disputed facts, including the nature of the property, the existence of joint family rights, and the point at which those rights were denied. Those matters could not be conclusively determined at the stage of an application for rejection of plaint. The defence based on absence of cancellation also could not defeat the suit without trial, since the plaintiffs' case was not founded on avoidance of the document but on assertion of beneficial entitlement.

Conclusion: The suit was not shown to be barred by limitation or by absence of a cancellation relief at this stage.

Final Conclusion: The statutory objections raised against the plaint could not be decided without evidence, and the suit was permitted to proceed to trial.

Ratio Decidendi: In an application for rejection of plaint, the court must confine itself to the plaint averments; where those averments disclose a case capable of falling within a statutory exception and the objections depend on disputed questions of fact, rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is impermissible.

---