Financial help toward sale consideration alone does not create a benami transaction or justify rejection of the plaint.

Financial assistance by a father towards sale consideration, without a pleading that he agreed to purchase property in the name of the beneficiary, does not by itself attract the definition of a benami transaction under Section 2(a) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. On the pleaded facts, the statutory bar under Sections 3 and 4 was not disclosed, so rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not justified. The suit was therefore not barred by benami law, and the application for rejection of plaint failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit was barred under the benami law on the pleaded facts, and whether the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was liable to be allowed.

Analysis: The plaint merely stated that the advance amount was given by the father of the first respondent. It did not plead that the father had entered into the agreement to purchase the property in the name of the first respondent. On that basis, the Court treated the pleadings as showing only financial help from the father for the sale consideration. Applying the meaning of "consideration paid or provided" in Section 2(a) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, the Court held that such financial assistance does not by itself make the transaction benami or attract the statutory bar under Sections 3 and 4. As the plaint did not disclose a bar to the suit, rejection under Order VII Rule 11 was not warranted.

Conclusion: The application under Order VII Rule 11 was rightly rejected, and the plea that the suit was barred by the benami law failed.

---