Court rejects application to dismiss plaint under Order VII Rule 11, citing need for trial to verify property purchase.

The court dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. It held that the plaintiff had sufficiently averred and provided supporting documents to establish the property was purchased from HUF funds, necessitating a trial for verification. The court emphasized that issues raised could not be resolved at the preliminary stage and required a full trial. The defendant's arguments were deemed inapplicable to the case, leading to the rejection of the application and scheduling of trial proceedings before the Joint Registrar.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) seeking rejection of plaint.
2. Determination of whether the suit property is an HUF property or self-acquired property.
3. Applicability of Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC:
The defendant no.1 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. The court emphasized that in deciding such an application, reference must be made solely to the averments in the plaint and the documents filed with it. The court held that the plaintiff had made necessary averments and filed supporting documents to establish that the suit property was purchased from HUF funds. Therefore, the plaint could not be outrightly rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, and the veracity of the claims could only be tested through a trial.

2. Determination of Whether the Suit Property is an HUF Property or Self-Acquired Property:
The plaintiff claimed that the suit property was purchased from HUF funds and was held by the father as the Karta of the HUF. The plaintiff provided documents such as HUDCO Tax Saving Bonds, Income Tax Assessment orders, and TDS certificates to support the existence of the HUF and the purchase of the property from HUF funds. The defendant no.1 argued that the property was purchased in the individual name of late Shri Surinder Singh Chowdhary and not in the name of the HUF. The court noted that the plaintiff had made clear pleadings regarding the HUF and the purchase of the property from HUF funds, which needed to be tested in a trial.

3. Applicability of Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988:
Both parties extensively relied on Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The court referred to Section 4(3)(a) of the unamended Benami Act, which provides an exception for properties held by a coparcener in an HUF for the benefit of the family. The court cited the Supreme Court judgment in Pawan Kumar, which held that whether a matter falls within the purview of Section 4(3) of the unamended Benami Act must be decided after trial and not at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The court concluded that the plaintiff had made necessary averments to fall within the exception provided under Section 4(3)(a) of the unamended Benami Act, and thus, the plaint could not be rejected outright.

Observations and Findings:
The court observed that the plaintiff had made necessary averments and filed supporting documents to establish the existence of the HUF and the purchase of the suit property from HUF funds. The court held that the issues raised by the defendant no.1 could not be decided at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and required a full trial. The court also noted that the judgments relied upon by the defendant no.1 were distinguishable and did not apply to the facts of the present case. Consequently, the court dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, stating that the plaint disclosed a cause of action that required determination through a trial.

Conclusion:
The application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC was dismissed. The court directed that the case be listed before the Joint Registrar for fixing the dates of trial. The observations made in the judgment were noted to have no bearing on the final adjudication of the suit.

---