https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413847 A plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) merely because isolated averments may suggest a benami element if the pleadings, read as a whole, disclose a broader basis of claim. Here, the suit was founded not only on the sale deed but also on subsequent inventory proceedings and the alleged accrual of cause of action in 2017, so the applicability of Section 4 of the Prohibition of Benami Transactions Act depended on disputed facts, including the plaintiffs' knowledge of the sale deed and the nature of their claim. The objection was therefore left for trial and evidence. en-us Tue, 05 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Oct 2021 08:31:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413847 A plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) merely because isolated averments may suggest a benami element if the pleadings, read as a whole, disclose a broader basis of claim. Here, the suit was founded not only on the sale deed but also on subsequent inventory proceedings and the alleged accrual of cause of action in 2017, so the applicability of Section 4 of the Prohibition of Benami Transactions Act depended on disputed facts, including the plaintiffs' knowledge of the sale deed and the nature of their claim. The objection was therefore left for trial and evidence. Case-Laws Benami Property Tue, 05 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413847