Order VII Rule 11 CPC: plaint survives where cause of action is pleaded and title disputes require trial evidence.

A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC merely because the defendant disputes title or the maintainability of the relief. The court may consider only the plaint averments and accompanying documents at that stage, and here those pleadings were sufficient to disclose a cause of action because the property was pleaded to have been purchased in the petitioner's name for the children's benefit and alienation was alleged. Whether the transaction was benami and whether the purchase was made from the petitioner's own funds were factual disputes requiring trial evidence, not summary determination. The refusal to reject the plaint at the threshold was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for want of cause of action and on the ground that the relief claimed could not be maintained without a declaration of title.

Analysis: In deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11, only the averments in the plaint and the documents filed with it can be considered. The pleadings disclosed that the suit property was stated to have been purchased in the name of the petitioner for the benefit of the children, and that the petitioner was attempting to alienate the property. Those pleadings were sufficient to disclose a cause of action. The dispute whether the transaction was benami and whether the property was purchased from the petitioner's own funds involved questions of fact that could be decided only on evidence at trial and not in summary proceedings under Order VII Rule 11.

Conclusion: The plaint was not liable to be rejected at the threshold, and the refusal to reject it under Order VII Rule 11 was upheld.

---