https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286042 A plaint resisting rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC must be read as a whole, and specific averments can be sufficient if they bring the case within a statutory exception. The Delhi High Court noted pleadings that the property was bought for family benefit, treated as joint family property, and held in a nominee or fiduciary capacity, which were enough on the plaint to invoke the exceptions in Section 4(3) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. It also held that cause of action and limitation were adequately pleaded because the dispute allegedly arose only after a 2006 notice. Disputed issues of title, trust, family status, and limitation had to await trial. en-us Thu, 16 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Feb 2020 15:37:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286042 A plaint resisting rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC must be read as a whole, and specific averments can be sufficient if they bring the case within a statutory exception. The Delhi High Court noted pleadings that the property was bought for family benefit, treated as joint family property, and held in a nominee or fiduciary capacity, which were enough on the plaint to invoke the exceptions in Section 4(3) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. It also held that cause of action and limitation were adequately pleaded because the dispute allegedly arose only after a 2006 notice. Disputed issues of title, trust, family status, and limitation had to await trial. Case-Laws Benami Property Thu, 16 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286042