Court dismisses challenge to rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, ownership issue to be decided at Trial.

The Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition challenging the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. The Court held that the issue of ownership of the suit property could only be determined at Trial and not at the application stage. It found that the 1st respondent's claims regarding a benami transaction and the cause of action were sufficient to maintain the suit. The Court emphasized that only the averments in the plaint should be considered in such applications, ultimately upholding the lower court's decision without finding any error or irregularity.

---

---

Issues:
1. Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.
2. Benami transaction and ownership of suit property.
3. Cause of action and maintainability of the suit.

Issue 1: Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.:
The petitioner in this case filed a Civil Revision Petition against the fair and decretal order made in I.A. No. 846 of 2015 in O.S. No. 273 of 2014. The petitioner, as the 1st defendant in the suit, sought the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. on the grounds that the suit did not disclose any cause of action and was not maintainable. The petitioner argued that the allegations in the plaint were vexatious and lacked merit, thus urging the Court to exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. and reject the plaint at the outset. However, the 1st respondent contended that the suit had a triable issue and was maintainable, as the cause of action was clearly stated in the plaint. The Court, after considering the averments in the plaint, dismissed the application, holding that the issue of ownership of the suit property could only be determined at Trial and not in the application stage.

Issue 2: Benami transaction and ownership of suit property:
The 1st respondent claimed that the suit property was purchased in the name of the petitioner for the benefit of their children, respondents 2 and 3, out of his own funds, constituting a benami transaction. The petitioner, on the other hand, argued that without seeking a declaration of title, the 1st respondent had no locus standi to maintain the suit. The Court noted that the issue of whether the property was purchased for the benefit of the children by the 1st respondent or by the petitioner herself could only be determined after Trial based on the evidence presented. The 1st respondent's averments regarding the petitioner's attempt to alienate the property and the notice issued to the Sub Registrar disclosed a cause of action, supporting the maintainability of the suit.

Issue 3: Cause of action and maintainability of the suit:
The 1st respondent's suit sought a direction for the petitioner to convey the property to their children, respondents 2 and 3, by executing a deed of settlement or gift, and to restrain the petitioner from alienating the property. The petitioner contested that the 1st respondent lacked the right to file the suit due to disputed ownership. However, the Court found that the 1st respondent had sufficiently disclosed the cause of action in the plaint, and the question of benami transaction could only be resolved after Trial. The Court emphasized that in considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., only the averments in the plaint should be taken into account, not the contents of the written statement or other documents. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, upholding the order of the learned Judge, as there was no error or irregularity warranting intervention.

---

---