https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286048 A plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC merely on a benami objection where the pleadings invoke the statutory exception for property purchased in the mother's name from the father's funds. A limitation or Hindu Succession Act objection also does not justify rejection when the factual matrix requires evidence and the claim is not confined to a coparcenary right. However, where the plaint itself shows that the plaintiff is not in actual or symbolic possession and seeks declaration of title with cancellation as consequential relief, ad valorem court fee is payable on the value of the share and the declaratory relief. en-us Wed, 19 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Feb 2020 18:55:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286048 A plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC merely on a benami objection where the pleadings invoke the statutory exception for property purchased in the mother's name from the father's funds. A limitation or Hindu Succession Act objection also does not justify rejection when the factual matrix requires evidence and the claim is not confined to a coparcenary right. However, where the plaint itself shows that the plaintiff is not in actual or symbolic possession and seeks declaration of title with cancellation as consequential relief, ad valorem court fee is payable on the value of the share and the declaratory relief. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 19 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286048