Order VII Rule 11 pleadings test prevents threshold rejection where benami, limitation and admissions require evidence.

A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC unless the bar of law is apparent from the plaint itself; the court must confine itself to the plaint averments and accompanying documents, and cannot rely on the defendant's defence to test rejection. Where the plaint disclosed a cause of action alleging that property standing in the mother's name was acquired from family funds, that a gift deed was unauthorised and procured under undue influence, and that knowledge arose only later, questions of benami, limitation under Articles 58 and 59, admissions, and alleged suppression required evidence and could not be decided at the threshold. Rejection of only one relief was also impermissible when the suit as a whole was triable. The Section 340 CrPC application did not affect the suit at this stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the grounds of alleged benami bar, limitation, prior admissions and suppression of material facts, and whether the application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could succeed at the threshold.

Analysis: For deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, only the plaint averments and the documents filed with it are to be examined, and the defence set up by the opposite party cannot be used to test rejection of the plaint. The plaint disclosed a specific cause of action by asserting that the suit property, though recorded in the mother's name, was really acquired out of family funds and belonged beneficially to the father, and that the impugned gift deed was executed without lawful authority and under undue influence. The plea that the suit was barred by the benami law could not be decided merely on the pleadings because the nature of the transaction, the source of funds, the intention of the parties, and the applicability of statutory exceptions required evidence. The plea of limitation also did not appear barred on the face of the plaint, because the plaintiff pleaded knowledge of the alleged gift deed only in 2016 and the questions arising under Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 were mixed questions of law and fact. The alleged prior admissions before the DRT and alleged suppression could not be treated as conclusive at this stage, since admissions are not final against title and their effect must be tested in evidence. It was also impermissible to seek rejection of the plaint only in relation to one relief when the plaint as a whole disclosed a triable cause of action. The Section 340 application could not dislodge the suit at this interlocutory stage.

Conclusion: The plaint was not liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the objections based on benami, limitation, admissions and suppression were left for trial.

Ratio Decidendi: A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 unless the bar of law is apparent from the plaint itself on a demurrer, and disputed questions requiring evidence must be tried on merits; admissions and alleged benami character of a transaction do not, by themselves, justify threshold rejection where the plaint discloses a cause of action.

---