https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405052 A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC where the bar of law is evident from the plaint itself. The plaint must be read as a whole, and a stray sentence cannot be isolated to defeat the pleading. On the pleaded facts, the plaintiff asserted exclusive ownership based on purchases made in the defendants' names from the plaintiff's funds, which attracted the statutory bar under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The alternative suggestion of fiduciary or trustee character was inconsistent with the plaint averments. The rejection of the plaint was therefore justified. en-us Mon, 01 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Oct 2024 11:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405052 A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC where the bar of law is evident from the plaint itself. The plaint must be read as a whole, and a stray sentence cannot be isolated to defeat the pleading. On the pleaded facts, the plaintiff asserted exclusive ownership based on purchases made in the defendants' names from the plaintiff's funds, which attracted the statutory bar under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The alternative suggestion of fiduciary or trustee character was inconsistent with the plaint averments. The rejection of the plaint was therefore justified. Case-Laws Benami Property Mon, 01 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405052