Benami property bar under Order VII Rule 11(d) applies when the plaint itself discloses the statutory prohibition.

A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC where the bar of law is evident from the plaint itself. The plaint must be read as a whole, and a stray sentence cannot be isolated to defeat the pleading. On the pleaded facts, the plaintiff asserted exclusive ownership based on purchases made in the defendants' names from the plaintiff's funds, which attracted the statutory bar under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The alternative suggestion of fiduciary or trustee character was inconsistent with the plaint averments. The rejection of the plaint was therefore justified.

---

---

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

Analysis: The plaint had to be read as a whole, and a stray sentence could not be isolated to defeat the pleading. The material averments showed that the plaintiff claimed exclusive ownership on the footing that the properties were purchased in the names of the defendants from the plaintiff's funds, and not that the suit properties were pleaded to be joint family properties purchased out of joint family funds. On that pleading, the suit squarely attracted the statutory bar against enforcing rights in respect of benami property. The contention based on fiduciary capacity or trustee character was found inconsistent with the plaint averments. Applying the settled rule that Order VII Rule 11(d) operates where the bar of law is clear from the plaint itself, the rejection of the plaint was justified.

Conclusion: The plaint was rightly rejected as barred by law, and the challenge to that rejection failed.

---