https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195069 A plaint alleging that an earlier partition award and decree were sham, collusive, and intended only for a collateral tax purpose disclosed a triable cause of action, so rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was not justified. The Court held that, on the plaint averments, the earlier proceedings could be treated as not truly severing the joint family status, and the plaintiff could seek partition without first obtaining cancellation. Limitation also could not be decided against the plaint at this stage, because the pleaded accrual of the right to sue arose on denial or threat to the plaintiff's rights, attracting Article 113 and requiring evidence. The suit was therefore not barred by the Arbitration Act, 1940. en-us Tue, 10 Sep 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Nov 2017 18:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195069 A plaint alleging that an earlier partition award and decree were sham, collusive, and intended only for a collateral tax purpose disclosed a triable cause of action, so rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was not justified. The Court held that, on the plaint averments, the earlier proceedings could be treated as not truly severing the joint family status, and the plaintiff could seek partition without first obtaining cancellation. Limitation also could not be decided against the plaint at this stage, because the pleaded accrual of the right to sue arose on denial or threat to the plaintiff's rights, attracting Article 113 and requiring evidence. The suit was therefore not barred by the Arbitration Act, 1940. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 10 Sep 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195069