Benami property claims require specific pleadings to fit statutory exceptions; bare HUF assertions are insufficient to avoid rejection.

A plaint alleging that property stood in defendants' names while the consideration came from the plaintiff was held to attract the statutory bar on benami claims unless it specifically pleaded facts bringing the case within a recognised exception. The HUF exception failed because the plaint did not set out material particulars showing a valid Hindu Undivided Family, coparcenary status, or that the property was held for the benefit of coparceners. The fiduciary or trustee exception also failed because there was no pleading that the defendants held the property in such a capacity. Bare assertions of joint family ownership were insufficient, so rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit was barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 because the plaint did not bring the case within the statutory exceptions for Hindu Undivided Family property or fiduciary holding.

Analysis: The plea that the property had been purchased in the names of the defendants while consideration came from the plaintiff attracted the statutory bar against benami claims. The exception for Hindu Undivided Family property was unavailable because the plaint did not plead the essential facts showing a valid HUF, the defendants were not coparceners, and there was no pleading that the property was held for the benefit of coparceners. The alternative exception of fiduciary or trustee holding also failed because the plaint contained no averment that the defendants held the property in such a capacity. The pleadings were also deficient in disclosing the necessary factual basis for an HUF claim after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as mere assertions of joint family status were insufficient without material particulars.

Conclusion: The suit was barred in law and the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A plaint seeking rights in property alleged to be benami must specifically plead facts bringing the claim within a statutory exception under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, and a bare assertion of joint family or HUF ownership without material particulars is insufficient to avoid rejection at the threshold.

---