Plaint rejection and court fee rules in benami disputes: threshold objections fail, but ad valorem fee applies for title relief.

A plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC merely on a benami objection where the pleadings invoke the statutory exception for property purchased in the mother's name from the father's funds. A limitation or Hindu Succession Act objection also does not justify rejection when the factual matrix requires evidence and the claim is not confined to a coparcenary right. However, where the plaint itself shows that the plaintiff is not in actual or symbolic possession and seeks declaration of title with cancellation as consequential relief, ad valorem court fee is payable on the value of the share and the declaratory relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the grounds of benami bar, limitation and alleged non-payment of proper court fee, and whether ad valorem court fee was payable on the reliefs claimed.

Analysis: The pleadings did not justify rejection of the plaint at the threshold on the asserted benami objection, because the plaint proceeded on the case that the suit property was purchased in the name of the mother from the father's funds and fell within the exception recognized in the amended benami law. The objection based on the Hindu Succession Act and limitation also did not warrant rejection at the pleading stage, as the plaintiff's case was not confined to a coparcenary claim and the factual matrix required evidence. On court fee, the plaint itself showed that the plaintiff was not in actual or symbolic possession and sought declaration of title and cancellation as a consequential relief, which attracted ad valorem court fee.

Conclusion: The application for rejection of the plaint failed, but the plaintiff was required to pay ad valorem court fee on the value of her share and on the declaratory relief concerning the gift deed.

---