Plaint rejection under Order VII Rule 11 hinges on plaint averments alone, with fiduciary-capacity facts defeating a benami threshold objection.

In an application for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court must examine only the plaint averments as a whole. If those averments disclose a cause of action and do not on their face show a statutory bar, rejection is not warranted. On the pleaded facts, the alleged purchase of property in the defendant's name with funds provided by the father, coupled with an asserted oral arrangement to hold the property in trust and transfer it on majority, was sufficient to found a cause of action. The benami objection was treated as inapplicable at the threshold in view of the fiduciary-capacity exception, and the registration objection was regarded as a defence issue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action and was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the grounds of alleged benami nature of the transactions and want of compulsory registration.

Analysis: For deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11, only the averments in the plaint are relevant and they must be read as a whole. If those averments disclose a cause of action, or do not show that the suit is barred by law, rejection of the plaint is not justified. On the plaint averments, the properties were purchased in the defendant's name from funds allegedly provided by the father, with an asserted oral arrangement that the defendant would hold them in trust for the plaintiffs and transfer them on the plaintiffs attaining majority age. These assertions, if proved, furnish a cause of action. The plea of benami was found misplaced in view of the statutory exception for a person holding property in a fiduciary capacity under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The objection based on registration was also treated as a defence plea not relevant at the threshold stage.

Conclusion: The plaint disclosed sufficient cause of action and was not liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Ratio Decidendi: While considering rejection of a plaint, the court must confine itself to the plaint averments; if those averments disclose a cause of action and do not, on their face, show a statutory bar, the plaint cannot be rejected, including where the pleaded facts attract the fiduciary-capacity exception to benami law.

---