https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286040 A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) unless the statutory bar is apparent from the plaint itself. The Delhi HC held that disputed questions such as whether the properties were joint family assets or self-acquired, whether the Hindu Undivided Family continued to exist, and whether the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act applied required evidence and could not be decided at the threshold. Objections concerning a minor coparcener's partition claim and the mother's role as next friend also raised matters for trial. The application for rejection of plaint therefore failed, and the suit was directed to proceed on evidence. en-us Mon, 28 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Feb 2020 15:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286040 A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) unless the statutory bar is apparent from the plaint itself. The Delhi HC held that disputed questions such as whether the properties were joint family assets or self-acquired, whether the Hindu Undivided Family continued to exist, and whether the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act applied required evidence and could not be decided at the threshold. Objections concerning a minor coparcener's partition claim and the mother's role as next friend also raised matters for trial. The application for rejection of plaint therefore failed, and the suit was directed to proceed on evidence. Case-Laws Benami Property Mon, 28 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286040