Benami exemptions and plaint rejection turn on vested rights and disputed facts before trial.

The amended benami framework applied because the repeal and redefinition of exempted transactions did not extinguish any vested right under the earlier law; the change only clarified the scope of the statutory exceptions. The suit could still fall within the family-member exception on the pleaded facts, but that depended on disputed questions such as source of consideration and the nature of the transaction, which required evidence. The plaint therefore could not be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC merely on a claimed benami bar, since the statutory exception was not conclusively excluded on the face of the pleadings. The rejection order was set aside and the suit restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amended benami law applied to the suit and whether the repeal and redefinition of exempted transactions took away any vested right under the unamended Act. (ii) Whether the plaint could be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the suit was barred as a benami claim.

Issue (i): Whether the amended benami law applied to the suit and whether the repeal and redefinition of exempted transactions took away any vested right under the unamended Act.

Analysis: The earlier law contained limited exceptions for properties held in the name of a wife, in a fiduciary capacity, or by a trustee. The amended provision did not extinguish any vested right under the unamended law; it only defined and clarified the scope of exempted benami transactions more fully. In the absence of a pre-existing vested right to claim a broader undefined exemption, the amended definition was treated as governing the issue. The suit claim, on the pleaded facts, could fall within the statutory exception relating to property held in the name of family members, but that factual issue required evidence.

Conclusion: The amended benami framework applied, and no vested right was taken away from the defendants by the statutory change.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaint could be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the suit was barred as a benami claim.

Analysis: Rejection of a plaint is permissible only when the bar is evident on the face of the pleadings. Here, the applicability of the statutory exception depended on disputed facts, including the source of consideration and the character of the transaction, which could not be conclusively decided at the threshold. The suit therefore could not be non-suited without trial.

Conclusion: The plaint could not be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the order rejecting the plaint was set aside, and the suit was restored to be decided afresh in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A repeal or redefinition of benami exemptions does not remove any vested right unless such right had already crystallised, and where the applicability of a statutory exception depends on disputed facts, the plaint cannot be rejected without trial.

---