Rejection of plaint requires examination of plaint averments only; disputed benami allegations cannot be decided without evidence.

In an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court must confine itself to the plaint averments and cannot examine the defence in the written statement. A plea that the suit property was benami, that the purchaser lacked independent means, or that the transaction was fiduciary in nature raised disputed questions of fact requiring evidence. Rejection of the plaint was therefore impermissible at that stage, and the challenge based on the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint in a partition suit was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the suit was barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.

Analysis: In an application under Order VII Rule 11, only the averments in the plaint can be examined and the defence set up in the written statement cannot be looked into. The plea that the property was purchased benami, that the named purchaser lacked independent means, and that the purchase was in fiduciary capacity raised disputed questions of fact. Those questions could be decided only on evidence after trial and not at the stage of rejection of plaint.

Conclusion: The plaint was not liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11, and the challenge based on the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For deciding an application for rejection of plaint, the court must confine itself to the plaint allegations alone, and where the plea requires adjudication of disputed facts and evidence, rejection under Order VII Rule 11 is impermissible.

---